Since there was no proof that plaintiff's failure to comply with a disclosure request pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(I) was willful or prejudicial, that failure should not have been utilized to preclude the affidavit of plaintiff's expert (see, McDermott v. Alvey, Inc., 198 A.D.2d 95; Busse v. Clark Equip. Corp., 182 A.D.2d 525). Nevertheless, even when that affidavit is taken into consideration, plaintiff fails to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any defendant had actual or constructive notice of the alleged wet condition of the landing, plaintiff, when deposed, having testified that on the occasion of his accident the steps were dry, that it was only drizzling, and that people were not carrying umbrellas (see, Cottingham v. Hammerson Fifth Ave., Inc., 259 A.D.2d 348). Plaintiff's speculative hypothesis, based primarily on the observations of his expert 11 months after the accident, that his accident may have been caused by the negligent application of wax to slip-resistant strips on the stairs, is patently insufficient to raise a triable issue, particularly in light of plaintiff's deposition testimony that he had never touched the strips in question (see, Pagan v. Local 23-25 Intl. Ladies Garment Workers Union, 234 A.D.2d 37). Finally, plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue with respect to his claim premised on the purportedly defective design of the handrail, because he has offered no non-speculative ground in support of his theory that he would have recovered his footing had the handrail projected an additional quarter-inch from the wall and so been free of the claimed defect (see, Salzo v. Bedding Showcase, Inc., 238 A.D.2d 180, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 806).
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.