Plaintiff was injured when he slipped and fell on a subway hatch installed in the sidewalk. The mere fact that the surface of the hatch was slippery when wet is insufficient to raise a triable issue as to negligence (Wasserstrom v. New York City Tr. Auth., 267 A.D.2d 36, 37,lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 761). The expert affidavit offered by plaintiff was of no value, since the expert's opinion was conclusory and was not supported by references to specific, currently applicable safety standards or practices (see Contreras v. Zabar's, 293 A.D.2d 362). Plaintiff did not raise a triable issue as to whether the subway hatch, which features the usual type of raised treads used on cellar hatches, was defective (see Cornwell v. Otis El. Co., 275 A.D.2d 649; Mosher v. Town of Oppenheim, 263 A.D.2d 605, 606; compare Radaelli v. City of Troy, 229 A.D.2d 882 [smooth grate lacking any treads]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.