PLUHAR v. TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON (2006)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated February 9, 2005, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she slipped and fell on a boat launching ramp located at the end of Bay Avenue in East Quogue.

 The defendants met their burden of establishing their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642;  Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).   The plaintiff was unable, in deposition testimony, to identify the cause of her fall, which is fatal to her claim (see Oettinger v. Amerada Hess Corp., 15 A.D.3d 638, 639, 790 N.Y.S.2d 693;  Hartman v. Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 A.D.2d 570, 754 N.Y.S.2d 31;  Visconti v. 110 Huntington Assoc., 272 A.D.2d 320, 321, 707 N.Y.S.2d 884).   The absence of evidence of causation prevents the plaintiff from establishing that the slippery condition was created by the defendants, or that they knew or should have known of its existence for a sufficient time to remedy it (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774;  Williams v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 274 A.D.2d 649, 650, 710 N.Y.S.2d 714).   Mere speculation as to the cause of a fall is insufficient (see Visconti v. 110 Huntington Assoc., supra at 321, 707 N.Y.S.2d 884;  Novoni v. LaParma Corp., 278 A.D.2d 393, 717 N.Y.S.2d 379).   The presence of a warning sign at the site is, at best, evidence of a general awareness of slippery conditions, but is not notice of the specific cause of the plaintiff's accident, which remains unidentified (see Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 967, 969, 622 N.Y.S.2d 493, 646 N.E.2d 795;   Farrago v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 17 A.D.3d 631, 632, 794 N.Y.S.2d 107).

In light of the foregoing, we need not consider the plaintiff's remaining contentions.