Opinion
2002-00505
Argued February 4, 2003.
April 14, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, for an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), entered December 21, 2001, as denied his motion for summary judgment. Justice Smith has been substituted for the late Justice O'Brien (see 22 NYCRR 670.1[c]).
Bart and Schwartz, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Gerald V. Dandeneau of counsel), for appellant.
Lazer, Aptheker, Feldman, Rosella Yedid, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Zachary Murdock of counsel), for respondents Daniel Realty Associates, Morton H. Kaplan, and Howard F. Kurfist.
Hartman Craven, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Victor M. Metsch and Glenn H. Spiegel of counsel), for respondents Kenneth Katzman and Gilbert King.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed inofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that when the language of a contract is ambiguous, its construction presents a question of fact which may not be resolved by the court on a motion for summary judgment (see Amusement Business Underwriters v. American Intl. Group, 66 N.Y.2d 878, 880; Reiner v. Wenig, 269 A.D.2d 379; Federated Assocs. v. Pergament Distribs., 240 A.D.2d 622; Icon Motors v. Empire State Datsun, 178 A.D.2d 463). Here, the relevant provisions of the partnership agreement are unclear and ambiguous as to whether the defendants had the right to terminate the plaintiff's partnership interest under the facts presented. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as issues of fact remain which can only be resolved at trial (see Reiner v. Wenig, supra; Federated Assocs. v. Pergament Distribs., supra; Icon Motors v. Empire State Datsun, supra).
In light of the foregoing, the parties' remaining contentions need not be reached.
RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, SMITH and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.