Opinion
Argued October 12, 1999
December 6, 1999
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Roosevelt Maintenance, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered November 23, 1998, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and failed to determine those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim of the defendant Board of Education of the City of New York and to strike the plaintiff's amended bill of particulars.
Curtis, Zaklukiewicz, Vasile, Devine McElhenny, Merrick, N Y (Patrick T. DiCaprio of counsel), for appellant.
Talisman, Rudin DeLorenz, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Nicholas R. Santora of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow and John Hogrogian of counsel), for defendant-respondent.
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, JJ.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as failed to determine those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim of the defendant Board of Education of the City of New York and to strike the plaintiff's amended bill of particulars is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
The trial court properly denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Roosevelt Maintenance, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Questions of fact exist as to whether or not the defendant Roosevelt Maintenance, Inc., exacerbated the icy condition of the ramp where the plaintiff fell, and whether it exercised reasonable care in its maintenance of the premises (see, Genen v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 261 A.D.2d 211 [1st Dept., May 18, 1999]).
The court did not determine those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the cross claim of the defendant Board of Education of the City of New York and to strike the plaintiff's amended bill of particulars. Accordingly, the appeal from so much of the order as failed to render a determination must be dismissed, as those branches remain pending and undecided (see, Katz v. Katz, 68 A.D.2d 536 ).
SANTUCCI, J.P., THOMPSON, SULLIVAN, and FRIEDMANN, JJ., concur.