Defendant made a prima facie case of entitlement to summary judgment by submitting an affirmation of a medical expert establishing that defendant had rendered acceptable medical care to plaintiffs decedent. In response, plaintiff submitted evidence insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, as the affirmation of plaintiffs physician expert not only failed to controvert a number of points in defendant's expert affirmation, but also was conclusory and devoid of analysis or reference to scientific data ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; DeCintio v Lawrence Hosp., 33 AD3d 329; Ramirez v Columbia-Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 16 AD3d 238). Plaintiffs physician expert also improperly raised, for the first time in opposition to the summary judgment motion, a new theory of liability regarding the treatment of plaintiff's decedent that had not been set forth in the complaint or bills of particulars ( see Golubov v Wolfson, 22 AD3d 635; Winters v St. Vincent's Med. Ctr. of Richmond, 273 AD2d 465). The affidavit of plaintiffs nurse expert was similarly conclusory, and offered medical opinions and conclusions that the expert was not competent to render ( see Elliot v Long Is. Home, Ltd., 12 AD3d 481, 482; Mills v Moriarty, 302 AD2d 436, lv denied 100 NY2d 502).
We need not reach defendant's remaining contentions in light of our determination.