562 EGLINTON INC v. MERLO (2000)

 Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' cross motion to disqualify the law firm representing defendant Samuel Merlo from further representation of Merlo in this action (see, Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Meyner & Landis, 89 N.Y.2d 123, 131, 651 N.Y.S.2d 954, 674 N.E.2d 663, rearg. denied 89 N.Y.2d 917, 653 N.Y.S.2d 921, 676 N.E.2d 503).   The law firm previously represented plaintiffs in connection with a residential development project, and the issues involved therein are substantially related to the subject matter of this declaratory judgment action (see, Press v. Lozier, Inc., 239 A.D.2d 879, 659 N.Y.S.2d 648).   Whether the law firm obtained “any confidential information in connection with that employment is not determinative” (Press v. Lozier, Inc., supra).   Plaintiffs are entitled to certainty that their interests will not be prejudiced based on that prior representation (see, Reid Petroleum Corp. v. Boller's Auto Sales & Serv., 248 A.D.2d 1016, 670 N.Y.S.2d 152;  Press v. Lozier, Inc., supra).   The court also properly denied Merlo's cross motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice to renew.  “Where pertinent facts essential to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant and may be revealed through pretrial discovery, summary judgment should be denied” (Shellberry v. Albright, 262 A.D.2d 942, 693 N.Y.S.2d 466).

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: