LOZIER v. LOZIER

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion and the cross motion. There are factual questions as to whether the plaintiff was negligent which mandate the denial of her motion ( see, Savone v. Donges, 122 A.D.2d 34; see generally, Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223). Further, contrary to the defendants' contention, the doctrine of "assumption of risk" does not bar the plaintiff's action as a matter of law ( see, Savone v. Donges, supra; see generally, Siegel v. City of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471; cf., Morgan v. State of New York, 90 N.Y.2d 471).

Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.