to use summary judgment as a vehicle for fragmented adjudication of. non-determinative issues. Subsection (a) of the Rule states that a party “seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim ..., may ... move ... for a summary judgment in the party’s favor upon all or any part thereof.” F.R.C.P. 56(a) (emphasis added). Furthermore, Subsection (c) states that “[a] summary judgment, interlocutory in character, may be rendered on the issue of liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages”, see F.R. Civ. P. 56(c). The clear implication is that the issue of liability is the only non-determinative issue which may be disposed of on summary judgment. See United States v. American Int’l Group, Inc., 1997 WL 66786, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 1997) (<HOLDING>); see also City of Wichita, Kan. v. U.S. Gypsum
holding that a ruling on a nondispositive issue would be inappropriate holding that on appeal a summary judgment ruling will be upheld if it can be sustained on any grounds even if the trial court gave an incorrect reason for its ruling holding that a party must obtain a distinct ruling on an issue in order to raise it on appeal holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate holding that appellants failure to obtain a ruling at the trial level even on a constitutional issue precluded review on appeal