The owners' cross motion was properly denied because, although no issues of fact exist as to the purely vicarious nature of their liability, their evidence does not establish, as a matter of law, that the general contractor was either negligent or exclusively supervised and controlled plaintiff's work site ( cf., Dias v. Stahl, 256 A.D.2d 235).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.