Opinion
July 21, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
In opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted medical affidavits indicating that he had sustained injuries to his lumbar spine significantly restricting his range of motion, but providing no evidence of the extent or degree of the alleged restriction. These affidavits, patently tailored to meet statutory requirements, were insufficient to establish that the plaintiff suffered a "significant limitation of use of a body function or system" (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; see, Orr v. Miner, 220 A.D.2d 567; Iglesias v. Inland Freightways, 209 A.D.2d 479). Moreover, the plaintiff's self-serving assertion that he could not perform his usual type of work after the accident did not establish that he had sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for a period of not less than 90 days during the 180-day period immediately following the accident (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Crawford v. Simmons, 239 A.D.2d 312; Cullum v. Washington, 227 A.D.2d 370; cf., Van De Bogart v Vanderpool, 215 A.D.2d 915).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.