Opinion
June 4, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Once the defendants submitted evidence establishing that the injured plaintiff had not suffered a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The affidavit of the injured plaintiff's examining physician consisted of conclusory assertions founded only upon subjective complaints of pain, and was tailored to meet the statutory requirements (see, Lincoln v. Johnson, 225 A.D.2d 593, 593-594; Donnelly v. Kurlander, 220 A.D.2d 716, 717; Giannakis v. Paschilidou, 212 A.D.2d 502, 503; Antoniou v. Duff, 204 A.D.2d 670, 670). The physician's affidavit is thus insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Similarly, the affidavit of the injured plaintiff consisted merely of subjective complaints of pain, and was also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see, Lincoln v. Johnson, supra; Barrett v. Howland, 202 A.D.2d 383).
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.