Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
As a result of a fall allegedly caused by the appellant's negligence in failing to maintain adequate lighting in a parking garage, the plaintiff's decedent in Action No. 2 sustained physical injuries and later died. The appellant contends that it did not exercise any control over the garage, and therefore may not be cast in liability. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion (see, Santiago v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 235 A.D.2d 528; Gant v. Sparacino, 203 A.D.2d 515), we agree with the Supreme Court that issues of fact exist as to whether the appellant maintained and controlled the parking lot and, if so, whether it was negligent in so doing (see, Farrar v. Teicholz, 173 A.D.2d 674, 677; Huth v. Allied Maintenance Corp., 143 A.D.2d 634).
Mangano, P.J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.