Opinion
January 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendants' contention, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f), a court may deny a motion for summary judgment if it appears "that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated" (CPLR 3212 [f]; R.C.S. Farmers Mkts. Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 56 N.Y.2d 918, 920-921; Adelman v Island Holding Corp., 157 A.D.2d 637). We find that essential facts believed to exist peculiarly within the defendants' knowledge, with respect to the business relationship between them, have been sufficiently described so as to preclude the granting of summary judgment at this juncture (see, Koslov v. New York City Hous. Auth., 140 A.D.2d 586). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.