DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed inofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that when the language of a contract is ambiguous, its construction presents a question of fact which may not be resolved by the court on a motion for summary judgment (see Amusement Business Underwriters v. American Intl. Group, 66 N.Y.2d 878, 880; Reiner v. Wenig, 269 A.D.2d 379; Federated Assocs. v. Pergament Distribs., 240 A.D.2d 622; Icon Motors v. Empire State Datsun, 178 A.D.2d 463). Here, the relevant provisions of the partnership agreement are unclear and ambiguous as to whether the defendants had the right to terminate the plaintiff's partnership interest under the facts presented. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as issues of fact remain which can only be resolved at trial (see Reiner v. Wenig, supra; Federated Assocs. v. Pergament Distribs., supra; Icon Motors v. Empire State Datsun, supra).
In light of the foregoing, the parties' remaining contentions need not be reached.
RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, SMITH and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.