DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
In support of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, he made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff's claims that certain inland property had been damaged or diminished in value by the defendant's construction were conclusory, speculative, and unsubstantiated. The expert affidavit offered in opposition to the motion was based on conclusory allegations, which were without any independent factual basis, and therefore insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment ( see, Aghabi v. Sebro, 256 A.D.2d 287 [2d Dept., Dec. 7, 1998]; Young v. Fleary, 226 A.D.2d 454).
The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff's application for leave to submit a supplemental affidavit almost four months after the return date of the motion ( see, CPLR 2214; Risucci v. Zeal Mgt. Corp., 258 A.D.2d 512 [2d Dept., Feb. 8, 1999]; Romeo v. Ben-Soph Food Corp., 146 A.D.2d 688).