
    Ben Strauss Industries, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v City of New York, Appellant-Respondent.
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (White, J.), entered February 5, 1982 denying motion and cross motion for summary judgment, is modified, on the law, to the extent that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, and the complaint is dismissed, and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs. As to the Eastern Boulevard Bridge, the error on the site plan was a patent error. From the specifications and inspection there can have been no doubt that the bridge to be painted was the Eastern Boulevard Bridge over the Bronx River and not the highway overpass improperly indicated on the site plan. “A shadowy semblance of an issue is not enough to defeat the motion” (Hanrog Distr. Corp. v Hanioti, 10 Misc 2d 659, 660 [Shientag, J.], quoted with approval in Eaton v Laurel Delicatessen Corp., 5 AD2d 590, 593, affd 5 NY2d 1029). As to the 145th Street Bridge, the bid specifications required the successful bidder to do preliminary cleaning. The inspection which plaintiff made before bidding should have disclosed the debris, beer cans, etc., at the site, and it was plaintiff’s obligation under the bid to clean that. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross and Bloom, JJ.

Silverman and Alexander, JJ., dissent in part in a memorandum by Silver-man, J., as follows:

We agree with the disposition as to the Easter Boulevard Bridge. We would deny defendant’s motion insofar as it relates to the 145th Street Bridge. It is not clear to us that the cleaning required by the contract includes cleaning the debris referred to rather than merely cleaning the surfaces to be painted preparatory to painting them. In our view, there is an issue of fact as to whether, under customs and usages of the trade, cleaning to be done by painters included the removal of this debris.  