Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Maureen A. Healy, J.), entered February 28, 2007. The order granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order affirmed without costs.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury pursuant to Insurance Law § 5102 (d) raised a triable issue of fact warranting the denial of defendants' motion. Plaintiff submitted an affirmation from her physician who based his conclusion that plaintiff sustained a serious injury upon his own examination and upon unsworn medical reports of others. The unsworn medical
reports were of no probative value (Bycinthe v Kombos, 29 AD3d 845 [2006]; Mahoney v Zerillo, 6 AD3d 403 [2004]), and his own examination of plaintiff, which occurred approximately two and one-half years after the accident, failed to provide any competent medical proof that was contemporaneous with the accident indicating range of motion limitations (see Elder v Stokes, 35 AD3d 799 [2006]). Further, the statements offered by plaintiff with regard to the 90/180 category were too general and were obviously tailored to meet statutory and decisional law requirements (see Thompson v Abbasi, 15 AD3d 95 [2005]). In view of the foregoing, the lower court properly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 10, 2008