Opinion
May 28, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Isseks, J.).
Order affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff claims that the terms of the written contract at issue entitle it to receive payment for certain work it performed under the contract. While defendant does not deny that the work was satisfactorily completed, it does contend that the payment for the work performed was included in payment for other work performed. The contract, however, is ambiguous as to whether plaintiff is entitled to separate payment for the work it performed. Accordingly, since there are issues of fact concerning interpretation of the contract, summary judgment may not be granted ( see, Andre v. Pomeroy, 35 N.Y.2d 361). Weinstein, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.