DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"It is well settled that in the absence of evidence of a negligent application of floor wax or polish, the mere fact that a smooth floor may be shiny or slippery does not support a cause of action to recover damages for negligence, nor does it give rise to an inference of negligence" (Guarino v. La Shellda Maintenance Corp., 252 A.D.2d 514, 515; see also Brandefine v. National Cleaning Contr., 265 A.D.2d 441, Guzman v. Initial Contract Servs., 256 A.D.2d 308) . After the defendant established a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs adduced no proof as to the cause of the injured plaintiff's slip and fall. The injured plaintiff and her witnesses merely asserted that the floor was "very shiny" and "very slippery" and speculated that it was caused by improper waxing (see Lee v. Rite Aid of New York, 261 A.D.2d 368; Becker v. Cortlandt Colonial Rest., 273 A.D.2d 425; Mroz v. Ella Corp., 262 A.D.2d 465; Pizzi v. Bradlee's Div. of Stop Shop, 172 A.D.2d 504). The plaintiffs' expert, who found that the friction coefficient of the restaurant floor did not meet industry standards, merely concluded in his affidavit that the floor was slippery due to its smoothness (see Mroz v. Ella Corp., supra at 466). Moreover, his opinion is highly speculative and conclusory as it is based upon facts not in the record and was therefore insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Guarino v. La Shellda Maintenance Corp., supra at 515; Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.