DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The respondents demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of her accident (see Christopher v. New York City Tr. Auth, 300 A.D.2d 336; Novoni v. La Parma Corp., 278 A.D.2d 393; Visconti v. 110 Huntington Assocs., 272 A.D.2d 320; Prisco v. Long Is. Univ., 258 A.D.2d 451). Therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff did not meet her burden inasmuch as her claim that she slipped on some spilled food or beverage was completely speculative and insufficient to defeat the motion (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.