Opinion
March 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that a motion for summary judgment should not be granted when the opponent has produced sufficient evidence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Heath v. Soloff Constr., 107 A.D.2d 507). Here, after the appellant contractor made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the plaintiff subcontractor met its burden of demonstrating, by evidentiary proof in admissible form, that there were material issues of fact regarding the extent of the work which the plaintiff agreed to perform for the appellant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant's motion for summary judgment (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra).
Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.