Opinion
September 21, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Green, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this negligence action to recover for damages to its building caused by an electrical fire on August 24, 1982. The complaint alleged that, while renovating the building in August of 1971, the defendant general contractor, Di Marco Constructors Corporation (Di Marco), and defendant subcontractor, Jade Electric, Inc. (Jade), negligently installed an electrical outlet where the fire originated.
Special Term properly granted summary judgment in favor of DiMarco since plaintiff's affidavits were conclusory and failed to raise a triable issue as to whether Di Marco directed the manner, means or method of Jade's activities ( Moore v Wills, Inc., 250 N.Y. 426; Uppington v City of New York, 165 N.Y. 222; Horn v State of New York, 31 A.D.2d 364; Matter of Mace v Morrison Fleming, 267 App. Div. 29).
Judgment as a matter of law was properly granted to Jade at the close of plaintiff's proof since the expert testimony neither established a prima facie case of negligence directly nor under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ( Digelormo v Weil, 260 N.Y. 192; Abbott v St. Luke's Mem. Hosp. Center, 38 A.D.2d 176; cf. Manley v New York Tel. Co., 303 N.Y. 18).
Further, Special Term properly denied plaintiff's motion to reopen the case because plaintiff moved only after the court ruled on defendant's motion for judgment ( Cone Mills Corp. v Becker, 67 Misc.2d 749; cf., also, Grossbaum v Dil-Hill Realty Corp., 58 A.D.2d 593) and plaintiff neither identified the witness nor the curative proof the witness would supply ( Hansen v City of New York, 274 App. Div. 196, aff'd 299 N.Y. 136; cf., also, Siegel, N Y Prac, § 402, p. 530).