properly asserts a claim for more than "basic economic loss” and does not move for summary judgment on this ground. 21 . Although neither of defendants' physician’s reports are accompanied by a “sworn affidavit!],” Yong Qin Luo, 625 F.3d at 777, both reports are affirmed under the penalties of perjury and thus carry the “like force and effect” of a sworn affidavit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (“Wherever ... any matter is required ... to be supported ... or proved by ... sworn ... affidavit, ... such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported ... by the unsworn declaration ... in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury .... ”); see, e.g., Williams v. Elzy, No. 00 Civ. 5382(HBP), 2003 WL 22208349, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept 23, 2003) (Pitman, J.) (<HOLDING>). 22 . I address the issue of causation infra
holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391 holding that a complaint or motion duly verified under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 usc  1746 may be used as an opposing affidavit under fedrcivp 56 holding unsworn mri report inadmissible to establish serious injury holding unsworn declaration as opposed to an affidavit sworn to before a notary public admissible to prove serious injury under 28 usc  1746 holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction   depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc  1330a and proper service under 28 usc  1608