Opinion
November 13, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.).
The motion court properly characterized the claims asserted in the main action as involving alleged defective workmanship by particular contractors and, thereupon, properly dismissed the third-party complaint. Giving the language of the parties' agreement its plain meaning (see, American Express Bank v Uniroyal, Inc., 164 A.D.2d 275, 277, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 807), the applicable portion of section 4.13, providing that the third-party defendant "shall not be responsible for the cost of correcting defective Work performed by Contractors" is unambiguous (see, W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162). Mere assertion that contractual language is ambiguous is insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see, Lake Constr. Dev. Corp. v City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 514, 515).
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.