Opinion
June 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Once the defendants submitted evidence establishing that the plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the burden shifted to the plaintiff 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, 956-957). The affidavit of the plaintiffs physician, based on an examination more than four years after the subject accident, consisted of conclusory assertions tailored to meet statutory requirements ( see, Medina v. Zalmen Reis Assocs., 239 A.D.2d 394; Verrelli v. Tronolone, 230 A.D.2d 789; Komar v. Showers, 227 A.D.2d 135; Morales v. Luna, 205 A.D.2d 673), and was, thus, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Similarly, the plaintiffs affidavit, consisting of merely subjective complaints of pain, was also insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Furthermore, the scar on the plaintiffs forehead which he allegedly sustained in the subject accident does not constitute a significant disfigurement ( see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Hutchinson v. Beth Cab Corp., 204 A.D.2d 151).
Mangano, P.J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.