FRAGALE v. GEIGER

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Contrary to the finding of the Supreme Court, the reports prepared by the plaintiff's treating practitioners which the defendant submitted in support of his motion were admissible, although unsworn (see, Pagano v Kingsbury, 182 A.D.2d 268, 271). Accordingly, the unsworn report dated June 2, 1999, which was prepared by the plaintiff's physical therapist, may be properly considered in the determination of this motion. Furthermore, that report established, prima facie, that the plaintiff's injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see, Gaddy v Eyler, 79 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). The report states that the plaintiff had noted "a nearly complete alleviation of his symptoms."

The submissions which the plaintiff offered in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether he sustained a serious injury (see, Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; Grossman v Wright, 268 A.D.2d 79).