Opinion
August 24, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Submission of a case on the theory of res ipsa loquitur is warranted only when a plaintiff has established that the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur absent someone's negligence, that the event was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and that the event was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff (Ebanks v. New York City Tr. Auth., 70 N.Y.2d 621; Dermatossian v. New York City Tr. Auth., 67 N.Y.2d 219, citing Corcoran v. Banner Super Mkt., 19 N.Y.2d 425, 430, mod on remittitur 21 N.Y.2d 793 [quoting Prosser, Torts § 39, at 218 (3d ed)]). "[W]ithout proof of control, an essential predicate for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [is] absent" (Interested Underwriters v Associated Ceilings Corp., 55 N.Y.2d 635, 637). While it is not necessary that a plaintiff establish that there was only a single person or entity in control of that which is alleged to have caused the damage in order for res ipsa loquitur to apply (see, Schroeder v. City County Sav. Bank, 293 N.Y. 370, rearg denied 293 N.Y. 764; Corcoran v. Banner Super Mkt., 19 N.Y.2d 425, supra), the instant plaintiffs' failure to establish that the event was caused by an instrumentality in the control of the defendant hospital warranted the court's refusal to submit the case to the jury insofar as it was against that defendant on a theory of res ipsa loquitur. We have examined all of the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Niehoff, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.