VALIENT v. RIMLAND

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly found that there are issues of fact as to whether the appellant properly performed its ice-and snow-removal duties pursuant to the terms of its contract with the respondents (see, e.g., Phillips v. Young Men's Christian Assn., 215 A.D.2d 825; Ledda v. Minkin, 149 A.D.2d 471; see also, Capraro v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 245 A.D.2d 256; Leale v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 222 A.D.2d 414; D'Acunzo v. Rouse S.I. Shopping Ctr., 214 A.D.2d 531).

O'Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.