Opinion
August 3, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court properly interpreted the mortgage and note by referring to the judgment of divorce and other documents ( see, Restatement [Second] of Contracts, §§ 210, 215, 216; see also, Nau v. Vulcan Rail Constr. Co., 286 N.Y. 188). We agree with the Supreme Court that there are issues of fact which preclude granting summary judgment in his favor ( see, Boston Concessions Group v. Criterion Ctr. Corp., 200 A.D.2d 543).
The plaintiffs contention regarding the applicability of the doctrine of judicial estoppel is without merit ( cf., Douglas v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 237 A.D.2d 246; Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Colonial Funding Corp., 215 A.D.2d 435).
O'Brien, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.