Opinion
April 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.).
The evidence presented by plaintiffs in support of their motion for partial summary judgment consisted of defendant's offers to settle or compromise. These offers contained no admissions of fact and were therefore properly excluded as evidence since such offers may not be used against a party to prove liability (see, Bigelow-Sanford v. Specialized Commercial Floors, 77 A.D.2d 464; cf., Bellino v. Bellino Constr. Co., 75 A.D.2d 630). On the basis of the evidence before it, Supreme Court properly concluded that there were issues of fact which warranted denying plaintiffs' motion (see, Krupp v. Aetna Life Cas. Co., 103 A.D.2d 252, 261). Plaintiffs' remaining contentions have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.
Order affirmed, with costs. Weiss, J.P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.