Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the orders are vacated, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The parties' agreement dated January 31, 1989, is ambiguous and unclear, and presents issues of fact which cannot be resolved on the record before us ( see, Media Boosters v. Prelude Prods., 75 A.D.2d 577; cf., Bianculli v. Bianculli, 242 A.D.2d 647). There are triable issues of fact with respect to, inter alia, (1) whether the agreement was intended to constitute a loan or an equity investment, (2) the meaning of the agreement's cancellation provision, and (3) the source of any repayment to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been denied ( see, Rudnitsky v. Robbins, 191 A.D.2d 488, 489).
O'Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.