Opinion
June 7, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted on behalf of Carol Looney Prevete, and the action with respect to the remaining plaintiffs is severed.
In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants submitted the unsworn reports of the plaintiff Carol Looney Prevete's treating physicians as well as the unsworn report of the physician who examined her on their behalf. Although the latter report may not be relied upon by the defendants (see, Pagano v. Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268), the reports of Prevete's treating physicians clearly indicate that she did not sustain a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Oswald v. Ospina, 187 A.D.2d 570; Estrada v. Holmes, 183 A.D.2d 436; Hemmes v. Twedt, 180 A.D.2d 925; McLiverty v. Urban, 131 A.D.2d 449). Prevete did not see a doctor until a week after the accident, last received medical treatment in 1984 (the accident occurred in June 1983), and missed only three days of work. Her affidavit in opposition to the motion was unsupported by any competent medical evidence and was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she had sustained a "serious injury" (see, Jacondino v. Lovis, 186 A.D.2d 109; Campbell v Finke, 187 A.D.2d 780; Zelenak v. Clark, 170 A.D.2d 677; Calvin v Maille, 127 A.D.2d 926). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.