ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff fell when her foot became caught on a vertical section of a shopping cart "railing" located four to five inches above the ground and running the length of the bakery counter in the defendant's supermarket. The defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the shopping cart railing was not an inherently dangerous condition. The defendant therefore had no duty to warn the plaintiff of the existence of the shopping cart railing (see Casamassa v. Waldbaum's Inc., 276 A.D.2d 659, 660; Speirs v. Dick's Clothing Sporting Goods, 268 A.D.2d 581, 582; Thomas v. Price-Mart, Inc., 267 A.D.2d 374, 375).
The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the shopping cart railing constituted a dangerous or defective condition (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). The affidavit of the plaintiff's expert, submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion, was conclusory, not based on the expert's personal knowledge, and did not set forth any specific safety guidelines for supermarkets which were applicable to such shopping cart railings and allegedly violated by the defendant. Therefore, that affidavit was insufficient to defeat the defendant's motion for summary judgment (see Speirs v. Dick's Clothing Sporting Goods, supra; Pizzi v. Bradlee's Div. of Stop Shop, 172 A.D.2d 504, 506). Absent the existence of a dangerous condition, the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see Moody v. Woolworth Co., 288 A.D.2d 446).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.