and (2) a release barred Utica from seeking contribution from Mr. Zimmerman. The trial court denied summary judgment on the ground that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to Mr. Zimmerman’s negligence, but granted summary judgment on the ground that the third-party claim was barred by a release. The trial court certified the issues for immediate appeal to this Court. On appeal, Mr. Zimmerman challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment on the ground that no genuine issue of fact existed as to his negligence. It is sufficient to state that the denial of his motion for summary judgment on that ground is interlocutory and must be dismissed. See Fraser v. DiSanti, 75 N.C. App. 654, 331 S.E.2d 217, disc. review denied, 315 N.C. 183, 337 S.E.2d 856 (1985) (<HOLDING>); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27 (1995). The focal
holding that denial of motion for summary judgment is interlocutory even though trial judge had stated that there was no just reason for delay because denial of motion for summary judgment was not a final determination of defendants rights and the appeal did not affect defendants substantial rights holding a ruling on a motion for summary judgment adjudicating the rights of a party is a final judgment subject to appeal holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable  holding that denial of motion for summary judgment not appealable because did not determine any rights and liabilities holding that a denial of a motion for partial summary judgment is interlocutory and subject to revision at discretion of the court