In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated October 12, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A plaintiff’s inability to identify the cause of his or her fall is fatal to his or her cause of action (see Manning v 6638 18th Ave. Realty Corp., 28 AD3d 434 [2006]; Fox v Watermill Enters., Inc., 19 AD3d 364 [2005]; Rodriguez v Cafaro, 17 AD3d 658 [2005]; Hartman v Mountain Val. Brew Pub, 301 AD2d 570 [2003]; Bitterman v Grotyohann, 295 AD2d 383 [2002]). Here, however, in the examination before trial transcript submitted by the defendants in
Inasmuch as the defendants did not establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, there is no need to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers (see Bloechle v Ranieri, 21 AD3d 435 [2005]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Garni and McCarthy, JJ, concur.