Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The evidence submitted by the parties on the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the respondent's affirmative defenses and for partial summary judgment shows the existence of issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff's president was involved in the setting of the fires at his place of business and, therefore, whether the respondent is liable to its insured (see, R.C.S. Farmers Mkts. Corp. v Great Am. Ins. Co., 56 N.Y.2d 918; Gallo Painting v Aetna Ins. Co., 49 A.D.2d 746; Supreme Automotive Mfg. Corp. v Continental Cas. Co., 97 A.D.2d 700). The motion was, therefore, properly denied (see, Wertheimer v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 85 A.D.2d 540; Suslensky v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 Misc. 624, affd 267 App. Div. 812, lv denied 270 App. Div. 819). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.