Opinion
August 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Smith, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, the appellant's summary judgment motion was properly denied because the issue of whether a warning is reasonable and adequate presents a triable question of fact (see, Reed v Niagara Mach. Tool Works, 166 A.D.2d 567, 568).
The appellant's remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal, and, in any event, is meritless. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.