Opinion
Submitted December 7, 1999
February 10, 2000
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated December 11, 1998, as denied their motion for summary judgment.
Slatt Lane, New York, N.Y. (Abner P. Slatt of counsel), for appellants.
Lawrence K. Feitell, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT and NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"While the meaning of a contract is ordinarily a question of law, when a term or clause is ambiguous and the determination of the parties' intent depends upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence or a choice among inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, then the issue is one of fact" (Amusement Business Underwriters v. American Int. Group, 66 N.Y.2d 878, 880 ). The stock option contracts which are the subject of this action are ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly found that triable issues of fact exist which must be resolved by a trial (see, Besicorp Group v. Enowitz, 235 A.D.2d 761 ; Yanuck v. Paston Sons Agency, 209 A.D.2d 207 ; Brook Shopping Centers v. Allied Stores General Real Estate Co., 165 A.D.2d 854 ).