Opinion
April 5, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendants established a prima facie case that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ( see, Gaddy v. Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955). The plaintiff's opposition papers were insufficient to raise a triable: question of fact on the issue.
The court properly refused to consider the plaintiff's medical records and the medical reports of his treating physicians, which were not submitted in admissible "form ( see, Grasso v. Angerami, 79 N.Y.2d 813, 814; Mobley v. Riportella, 241 A.D.2d 443).
The affidavit of Dr. Ernesto Resurreccion, who examined the plaintiff on September 22, 1997, was insufficient to defeat the defendants' prima facie showing. Dr. Resurreccion improperly relied, in large part, upon the plaintiff's inadmissible medical reports ( see, Friedman v. U-Haul Truck Rental, 216 A.D.2d 266, 267), he failed to specify what objective medical tests he performed on the plaintiff ( see, Lincoln v. Johnson, 225 A.D.2d 593; Giannakis v. Paschilidou, 212 A.D.2d 502; Antoniou v. Duff 204 A.D.2d 670), and he failed to provide any information concerning the nature of the plaintiff's medical treatment ( see, Rum v. Pam Transp., 250 A.D.2d 751). Neither Dr. Resurreccion nor the plaintiff explained the five-year gap between the plaintiff's initial treatments for his alleged injuries and his first examination by Dr. Resurreccion ( see, Stowe v. Simmons, 253 A.D.2d 422; Rum v. Pam Transp., supra; Williams v. Ciaramella, 250 A.D.2d 763). Moreover, Dr. Resurreccion's conclusory statements, which simply mirrored the statutory language, were insufficient, to defeat the defendants' prima facie showing ( see, Lopez v. Senatore, 65 N.Y.2d 1017, 1019; Antorino v. Mordes, 202 A.D.2d 528).
S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.