Opinion
June 30, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the defendant No-Jo Laundries, Inc.
The plaintiff has succeeded in establishing that facts essential to opposing the motion of the defendant No-Jo Laundries, Inc. (hereinafter No-Jo), for summary judgment are exclusively within the knowledge of No-Jo. Moreover, notwithstanding No-Jo's execution of a stipulation expressly providing for discovery in this action, the record unequivocally demonstrates that the plaintiff has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct such discovery. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have denied No-Jo's motion for summary judgment ( see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Urcan v. Cocarelli, 234 A.D.2d 537; Halpern Dev. Venture v. Board of Trustees, 222 A.D.2d 652; Baron v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 A.D.2d 792).
Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.