In a premises liability case, a defendant property owner moving for summary judgment can establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of negligent maintenance by showing that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her accident (see Gaither-Angus v Adelphi Univ., 180 A.D.3d 875; Gani v Avenue R Sephardic Congregation, 159 A.D.3d 873, 874). "However, even if a plaintiff's fall is precipitated by a misstep, where the plaintiff testifies that he or she reached out to try to stop his or her fall, the absence of a handrail, if required by law, may raise an issue of fact as to whether the absence of the handrail was a proximate cause of his or her injury" (Jackson v Bethel A.M.E. Church, 192 A.D.3d 868, 869-870; see Palmer v Prima Props., Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1094, 1094-1095; Russo v Frankels Garden City Realty Co., 93 A.D.3d 708, 710; Viscusi v Fenner, 10 A.D.3d 361, 362).
Moving on, we part ways with Supreme Court insofar as it determined that Bay State and Flooring Environment were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Similar to BCI, both Bay State and Flooring Environment met their respective prima facie burdens of demonstrating that they did not launch a force or instrument of harm by presenting proof that the installation of the threshold plate was not part of the scope of duties for which they were hired, that they typically do not install the type of plate that caused plaintiff's fall and that they did not, in fact, install the plate in question (see Santiago v Post Rd. Assoc., LLC, 201 A.D.3d at 982; Jackson v Bethel A.M.E. Church, 192 A.D.3d 868, 870 [2d Dept 2021]).