DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The defendants, who owned, operated and/or serviced and maintained an elevator that allegedly free-fell and came to an abrupt stop after a mainline fuse blew, met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that they had no notice of a similar recurring problem with the elevator, and demonstrated with affidavits of an elevator mechanic and an expert elevator consultant that the allegations were physically and mechanically impossible (see Williams v. Port Auth. of N.Y. N.J., 247 A.D.2d 296; Braithwaite v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 232 A.D.2d 352; Loughlin v. City of New York, 186 A.D.2d 176, 177). The plaintiffs failed to submit evidence in admissible form to counter the defendants' prima facie showing that the elevator functioned properly (see Braithwaite v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., supra). Moreover, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable, because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the elevator stoppage was the type of event that would not ordinarily occur absent negligence (see Kambat v. St. Francis Hosp., 89 N.Y.2d 489, 494; Dermatossian v. New York City Tr. Auth., 67 N.Y.2d 219, 226; Koch v. Otis El. Co., 10 A.D.2d 464, 466). Therefore, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT and MASTRO, JJ., concur.