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 (see Guarino v. La Shellda Maintenance Corp., 252 A.D.2d 514, 515; Brandefine v. National Cleaning Contr., 265 A.D.2d 441; Guzman v. Initial Contract Servs., 256 A.D.2d 308). The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant Showplace Bowling Center made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the plaintiff's deposition testimony that the floor where he fell was "very, very shiny" (see 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, 505).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The conclusions of the plaintiff's purported expert were conclusory, speculative, and not based upon an inspection of the accident site (see Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 972; Lindeman v. Vechhione Constr. Corp., 275 A.D.2d 392; Brandefine v. National Cleaning Contr., supra; Guarino v. La Shellda Maintenance Corp., supra).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, FRIEDMANN and RIVERA, JJ., concur.