DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants' established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their motion for summary judgment ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851). The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324; see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). In opposition, the plaintiff submitted the report and affidavit of an engineering expert whose conclusions were, among other things, conclusory and failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969; McGrath v. Parker, 4 A.D.3d 457; Gralnik v. Brighton Beach Assoc., 3 A.D.3d 518). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.