[brief] Plaintiff’s appeal though is procedurally defective.  As will be set forth more fully herein, Plaintiff purports to appeal the trial court’s January 6, 2023 Order granting summary judgment in favor of [...] (the “January 6 Order”), but, as set forth in Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal, Amended Notice of Appeal and Civil Case Information Statement (“CIS”), Plaintiff did not appeal from the trial court’s January 6, 2023 Order.  Rather, Plaintiff only appealed from the trial court’s Order denying his motion for reconsideration on February 10, 2023 (the “February 10 Order”).  [...] respectfully submits that Plaintiff’s appeal should be limited to sole issue raised in the Amended Notice of Appeal – whether the trial court erred in denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.  [...] nevertheless will also address the issue raised in Plaintiff’s appellate brief, i.e., whether the trial court erred in granting [...]’s motion for summary judgment.  In both of its decisions, the trial court correctly held that Plaintiff, who allegedly sustained personal injuries after falling, could not establish his single claim for negligence against [...] because Plaintiff was unable to show what caused him to allegedly fall – a required element on which Plaintiff bears the burden of proof.  The trial court correctly found that the evidentiary record and, notably, [...]’s inability to present any competent evidence to demonstrate why he allegedly fell belied his claim that [...]’s negligence proximately caused his alleged injuries.  [...]’s own deposition testimony unequivocally and repeatedly demonstrated that he could not point to the reason for his alleged fall.  [...] was not even certain that he did, in fact, fall.  Plaintiff’s inability to point to the cause of the accident or to recall whether he actually fell was further buttressed by medical records produced in discovery – records which state, by way of example, that Plaintiff “has no recollection of what happened” to him.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of [...] finding that Plaintiff’s claim of negligence was not based on competent evidence, but rather speculation about why he allegedly fell.  The trial court correctly found that all of the purported evidence Plaintiff presented relating to the alleged cause of the purported incident was purely speculative.  Accordingly, because Plaintiff could not demonstrate one of the requisite elements of a negligence claim – proximate cause – the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of [...] and dismissed the Amended Complaint.  The trial court reaffirmed that decision when it subsequently denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.  Plaintiff appealed only from the order denying reconsideration and did not appeal the order granting summary judgment in favor of [...].  On appeal, Plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred because it did not consider circumstantial evidence even though the circumstantial evidence argument was considered by the trial court – and soundly rejected.  In granting [...]’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court correctly determined that the proffered circumstantial evidence was speculative, could not establish causation on the part of [...], and should not be submitted to a jury.  The trial court reaffirmed its ruling when it denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.  Because no basis exists to disturb these rulings, and Plaintiff’s appeal is procedurally flawed, the trial court’s orders granting [...] summary judgment and denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration should be affirmed.