ASSOCIATED MUTUAL INS. v. KIPP'S ARCADIAN

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The instant actions arise out of a fire which occurred on April 18, 1995, at 155 Main Street in Ossining (hereinafter the building) owned by Kipp's Arcadian II, Inc., d/b/a Kipp's Pharmacy (hereinafter Kipp's Pharmacy). It is alleged that as a result of the fire, several buildings and the businesses contained therein sustained damage and business losses. The first floor of the building contained two businesses, Kipp's Pharmacy and a dental practice operated by Dr. Anthony Vassallo. A circuit breaker box, which controlled the lights and electricity in the pharmacy and Vassallo's office, allegedly caused the fire.

"To prove a prima facie case of negligence * * * a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant created the condition which caused the accident or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition" (Bradish v. Tank Tech Corp., 216 A.D.2d 505, 506; see Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 628, 646; Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837). The defendants Kipp's Pharmacy and San Realty Corp. (hereinafter the Kipp's defendants) and Vassallo established their burden on their respective motions for summary judgment by demonstrating that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous electrical condition which allegedly caused the fire (see Alvarez v. Compass Retail, 237 A.D.2d 473, 474). In response, the plaintiffs failed to raised a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs were speculative and conclusory in nature (see Clarke v. Helene Curtis, Inc., 293 A.D.2d 701, 702; Scola v. Sun Intl. N. Am., 279 A.D.2d 466, 467; Arce v. New York City Hous. Auth., 265 A.D.2d 281, 282; Matter of Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Barile, 86 A.D.2d 362, 366). Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the Kipp's defendants and Vassallo.

The plaintiffs' and Vassallo's remaining contentions on their respective appeals are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

S. MILLER, J.P., CRANE, COZIER and RIVERA, JJ., concur.