—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about December 18, 1998, inter alia, denying defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The subject policy of insurance issued by defendant insurer to plaintiff jewelry manufacturer limits the insurer’s liability thereunder for loss occasioned by the theft of the insured’s “pattern[s]” to- $2,500. Because it is not clear, as a matter of law, that limitation should apply where the insured’s loss is attributable to theft of its jewelry “model[s],” summary judgment was properly denied. The affidavits of jewelry manufacturers submitted by plaintiff were sufficient to raise a triable question as to whether the terms “model” and “pattern”, when understood from the insured’s perspective as a jewelry manufacturer, were, in fact, interchangeable as defendant-appellant contends. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.