Opinion
June 30, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that there exist triable issues of fact precluding the grant of summary judgment to the appellant ( see, Celardo v. Bell, 222 A.D.2d 547; Famularo v Havasi, 221 A.D.2d 587; Freeman Lbr. Co. v. Dutton Lbr. Corp., 220 A.D.2d 641; Rudnitsky v. Robbins, 191 A.D.2d 488; see also, Ugarriza v. Schmeider, 46 N.Y.2d 471; deVoil v. Wallace, 221 A.D.2d 411; Goldberg v. Nelson, 202 A.D.2d 390; Chahales v. Garber, 195 A.D.2d 585; cf., Stoehr v. Levere, 183 A.D.2d 886).
Thompson, J.P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.