The motion court correctly held that ambiguities in the subject partnership agreement and its amendment rendered its interpretation as a matter of law impracticable at this juncture in the litigation (cf., Payne v. Palisades Interstate Park Commn., 226 A.D.2d 902, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 810), and that questions of fact precluded resolution of the agreement's ambiguities on the basis of extrinsic evidence. We have considered the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.