| Miles v County of Dutchess |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05240 [85 AD3d 878] |
| June 14, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| George W. Miles, Appellant, v County of Dutchess et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] McCabe & Mack, LLP, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kimberly Hunt Lee of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated June 16, 2010, which granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bydemonstrating that the plaintiff could not identify what caused him to fall on the date of thesubject accident (see Aguilar vAnthony, 80 AD3d 544 [2011]; Martone v Shields, 71 AD3d 840 [2010]; Reiff v Beechwood Browns Rd. Bldg.Corp., 54 AD3d 1015 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue offact. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, there was no evidence connecting the alleged unsafecondition of the subject trestle or fence to his fall (see Aguilar v Anthony, 80 AD3d 544 [2011]; Martone v Shields, 71 AD3d 840[2010]; Reiff v Beechwood Browns Rd.Bldg. Corp., 54 AD3d 1015 [2008]).
Additionally, the Noseworthy doctrine (see Noseworthy v City of New York,298 NY 76 [1948]) does not apply to this case, since the plaintiff and the defendants had equalaccess to knowledge of the events surrounding the plaintiff's accident (see Aguilar v Anthony, 80 AD3d544 [2011]; Martone v Shields, 71 AD3d at 840; Kuravskaya v Samjo RealtyCorp., 281 AD2d 518 [2001]). In any event, the plaintiff was not relieved of the obligation toprovide some proof from which negligence could reasonably be inferred, and he failed to meetthis burden (see DeLuca v Cerda, 60AD3d 721 [2009]; Blanco v Oliveri, 304 AD2d 599 [2003]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambersand Cohen, JJ., concur.