The complaint against the maintenance company was properly dismissed absent evidence of the reason for plaintiff's fall, other than the "inherently slippery" condition of the terrazzo floor ( see, Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969; see also, Harris v. S P Mgt. Corp., 163 A.D.2d 870; Van Alstyne v. Fonda Refm. Church, 224 A.D.2d 901). There was no proof of negligent application of wax or polish to the floor and no proof, or even claim, that defendant's actions made the floor dangerous. The court properly disregarded as conclusory that part of plaintiff's expert's opinion that was based on observations of the lobby floor and a storage room made over four years after the accident ( see, Drillings v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 200 A.D.2d 381). Also properly disregarded, as inadmissible hearsay, were the unsworn written statements of plaintiff's co-workers that the floor was always slippery and that they had often seen maintenance personnel scrubbing and polishing it ( Adams v. Alexander's Dept. Stores, 226 A.D.2d 130).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.