Plaintiff Glen Hammarberg (hereinafter plaintiff) and his wife, derivatively, commenced this action after he was hit by a motorcycle while attending the annual Harley Rendezvous Classic in the Town of Rotterdam, Schenectady County. The event is a festival for motorcycle enthusiasts featuring food and alcohol vendors, as well as vendors selling jewelry, clothing and other items. The three-day festival attracts large crowds of people, many of whom camp overnight on the grounds. The accident occurred while plaintiff was walking on a pedestrian walkway, when a golf cart came down a hill on the adjacent roadway and the driver yelled "no brakes," causing a motorcycle to veer into the pedestrian walkway to avoid the golf cart, hitting plaintiff. A volunteer emergency medical technician assisted plaintiff and he was taken to the hospital. Plaintiffs allege that the accident and resultant injuries were caused by the negligence of defendants, the landowners and event sponsors.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, relying on evidence
"As landowners, defendants owed a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining their property in a safe condition under all the circumstances * * *" (Perrelli v Orlow, 273 A.D.2d 533, 534  [citation omitted]; see Basso v Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241 ). However, in order to establish a prima facie case of negligence, it was incumbent upon plaintiffs not only to identify a duty owed plaintiff by defendants, but to allege some breach thereof by identifying a dangerous or defective condition either created by defendants or of which defendants had actual or constructive notice (see Dapp v Larson, 240 A.D.2d 918, 918 ; George v Ponderosa Steak House, 221 A.D.2d 710, 711 ). As Supreme Court properly found, plaintiffs have utterly failed to allege any specific allegation of negligent conduct which may have contributed to the accident, but rely instead on general observations that the festival experienced high motorcycle traffic, alcohol was served and it rained the night before the event. Accordingly, "[w]ith only speculation proffered as to how [defendants] may have breached [their] duty," summary judgment was appropriately granted (Foley v Golub Corp., 252 A.D.2d 905, 908 ; see Sataline v Agrek Enters., 173 A.D.2d 227, 229 ).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.