Opinion
June 6, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The unsworn letter reports of the examining physician and chiropractor relied upon by the plaintiff in opposing the defendants' motion were insufficient to raise triable issues of fact (see also, Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268; Tatti v Cummings, 193 A.D.2d 596). In any event, although both of these reports conclude that the plaintiff suffered soft tissue back injuries, neither indicates the expected duration of the plaintiff's symptoms (see, Harrel v. Miles, 198 A.D.2d 400). On the contrary, the chiropractor who examined the plaintiff some six months after the accident found that he exhibited a full range of motion without limitation. The only admissible evidence offered by the plaintiff in his own affidavit, is likewise unavailing. The plaintiff's self-serving claims of incapacitation following the accident were clearly tailored to meet the statutory requirements (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Dubois v. Simpson, 182 A.D.2d 993, 994), and were belied by his own admission that he had returned to work 10 weeks later (see, Georgia v. Ramautar, 180 A.D.2d 713, 714). In any event, the plaintiff's failure to submit a physician's affidavit substantiating the existence of a medically determined injury is fatal to his claim of temporary incapacitation under the statute (see, Traugott v. Konig, 184 A.D.2d 765). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.