Opinion
March 13, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Upon our review of the record, including the verified complaint, the defendant's computer printouts (see, Guth Realty v. Gingold, 34 N.Y.2d 440; CPLR 3126), and the papers submitted in connection with the motion, we conclude that there are triable issues of fact which preclude the awarding of summary judgment (see, Blando v. I. O.A. Slutzky, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 869; Burger v. Brookhaven Med. Arts Bldg., 131 A.D.2d 622). In this regard, we reiterate the rule set forth in the case of Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. ( 3 N.Y.2d 395) as follows: "To grant summary judgment it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented * * *. This drastic remedy should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of such issues * * * or where the issue is 'arguable' * * * 'issue-finding, rather than issue-determination, is the key to the procedure'" (Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., supra, at 404, quoting Barrett v. Jacobs, 255 N.Y. 520, 522, and Esteve v. Abad, 271 App. Div. 725, 727).
The record contains an order dated June 9, 1987, entered upon the defendant's default, resolving answers to the plaintiffs' demand for written interrogatories in the plaintiffs' favor. The questions posed in the demand have limited relevance to the crucial issues in this lawsuit. Therefore, the resolving order did not require the court to grant that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment on the first cause of action. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.