DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to sufficiently identify the alleged substance which caused her to fall (see Lee v. Rite Aid of N.Y., 261 A.D.2d 368; Guzman v. Initial Contract Servs., 256 A.D.2d 308; Pizzi v. Bradlee's Div. of Stop Shop, 172 A.D.2d 504, 505). The plaintiff merely speculated that she slipped and fell on an improperly waxed or polished floor (see Silver v. Brodsky, 112 A.D.2d 213). Moreover, the plaintiff's affidavit was insufficient to show the existence of a triable issue of fact because it contradicted her earlier deposition testimony and was clearly designed to avoid the consequences of her earlier admissions (see Hartman v. Mountain Valley Brew Pub, 301 A.D.2d 570; Marcelle v. New York City Tr. Auth., 289 A.D.2d 459; Garvin v. Rosenberg, 204 A.D.2d 388). The expert affidavit submitted by the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact because it was speculative, unsubstantiated, and conclusory (see Banks v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 302 A.D.2d 341; Lindeman v. Vecchione Constr. Corp., 275 A.D.2d 392; Brandefine v. National Cleaning Contr., 265 A.D.2d 441).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SCHMIDT, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.