ARBUSTO v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall ( see Birman v. Birman, 8 AD3d 219; Garvin v. Rosenberg, 204 AD2d 388).

The plaintiff's opposing affidavit, in which he sought to identify the cause of his fall, merely raised a feigned issue of fact, which was insufficient to defeat the motion ( see Garvin v. Rosenberg, supra). In addition, the unsworn report of the plaintiff's expert failed to set forth any alleged unsafe condition which contributed to the plaintiff's fall ( see Birman v. Birman, supra at 220; Speirs v. Dick's Clothing Sporting Goods, 268 AD2d 581). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant.

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.