Gannon, Rosenfarb, Balletti & Drossman, New York (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC, New York (Amelia K. Brankov of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered December 22, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the parties' cross motions for summary judgment as to liability on the negligence cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs' failure to plead the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in the complaint does not render the doctrine unavailable at trial. They pleaded negligence, and the circumstances warrant the doctrine's application ( compare Ianotta v. Tishman Speyer Props., Inc., 46 A.D.3d 297, 852 N.Y.S.2d 27 [2007],with Yousefi v. Rudeth Realty, LLC, 61 A.D.3d 677, 877 N.Y.S.2d 132 [2009] ).
However, while plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to give rise to a permissible inference of negligence on defendant's part under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur ( see Dermatossian v. New York City Tr. Auth., 67 N.Y.2d 219, 226, 501 N.Y.S.2d 784, 492 N.E.2d 1200 [1986] ), they have not shown that the inference of negligence is inescapable or that defendant failed to raise any material issue of fact in rebuttal thereof ( see Morejon v. Rais Constr. Co., 7 N.Y.3d 203, 209, 818 N.Y.S.2d 792, 851 N.E.2d 1143 [2006];Shinshine Corp. v. Kinney Sys., 173 A.D.2d 293, 569 N.Y.S.2d 686 [1991] ).
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ., concur.