DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
After the respondent, the City of New York, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The Supreme Court properly determined that there is no evidence that the alleged negligence of the respondent in failing to post or replace an overhead sign was a proximate cause of the accident in which the plaintiff was allegedly injured (see, Murray v. State, 38 N.Y.2d 782; Law v. New York City Transit Auth., 279 A.D.2d 325 [1st Dept., Jan. 16, 2001]; Rendinaro v. City of New York, 254 A.D.2d 342; Ether v. State of New York, 235 A.D.2d 685). The plaintiff's expert evidence was speculative and conclusory (see, Terwilliger v. Dawes, 204 A.D.2d 433). The third set of photographs and the sign card from the New York City Bureau of Traffic Operations upon which the plaintiff relied were merely evidence of post-accident repairs or installations that were properly disregarded by the Supreme Court (see, Ray v. Hertz Corp., 271 A.D.2d 374; Angerome v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 551).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit.