CHRISTOPHER VARONA, plf-ap, v. BROOKS SHOPPING CENTERS LLC, ET AL., def-res, MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., def

4184. CHRISTOPHER VARONA, plf-ap, v. BROOKS SHOPPING CENTERS LLC, ET AL., def-res, MACY’S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., def — Sobo & Sobo, L.L.P., Middletown (Michael D. Wolff of counsel), for ap — Cerussi & Spring, P.C., White Plains (Richard D. Bentzen of counsel), for Brooks Shopping Center LLC, res — Law Office of Curtis, Vasile, Mehary & Dorry PC, Merrick (Patricia M. D’Antone of counsel), for the Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered February 4, 2016, which granted defendants Brooks Shopping Centers LLC’s and the Whiting-Turner Contracting Company’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability on the Labor Law §240(1) cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to application of the Noseworthy doctrine (Noseworthy v. City of New York (298 NY 76 [1948]), because he did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he suffered amnesia and that there was a causal relationship between defendants’ alleged fault and his alleged amnesia (see Schechter v. Klanfer, 28 NY2d 228 [1971]; Tselebis v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 72 AD3d 198 [1st Dept 2010]). In any event, the parties were on equal footing as to their knowledge of the facts of the incident (see Lynn v. Lynn, 216 AD2d 194 [1st Dept 1995]; Gayle v. City of New York, 256 AD2d 541 [2d Dept 1998]).