GLEASON v. HUBER

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Although the unsworn report of Dr. Ronald A. Nachman, the defendants' examining physician, may not be considered in support of the defendants' motion (see, Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268; Jacondino v Lovis, 186 A.D.2d 109), the plaintiff's medical records and the reports of the plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. F. Richard Hess, which were also annexed to the defendants' moving papers, established, prima facie, that the plaintiff had not sustained a "serious injury" within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Mandell v Leskiewicz, 170 A.D.2d 653; Charles v U.S. Fleet Leasing, 140 A.D.2d 481). The plaintiff's assertions in her affidavit that she suffered from intermittent pain in her neck and head as a result of the accident, as well as the unsworn diagnosis of her chiropractor that she sustained "post traumatic cervical radiculitis", were insufficient to defeat the defendants' entitlement to summary judgment in their favor (see, Scheer v Koubek, 70 N.Y.2d 678; O'Neill v Rogers, 163 A.D.2d 466; Delfino v Davey, 159 A.D.2d 604; Stadier v Findley, 148 A.D.2d 600; Mucci v Ruggerio, 133 A.D.2d 816).