Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"Under CPLR 3212 (f), `where facts essential to justify opposition to a motion for summary judgment are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant, summary judgment may be denied. . . . This is especially so where the opposing party has not had a reasonable opportunity for disclosure prior to the making of the motion'" (Juseinoski v New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 29 A.D.3d 636, 637 , quoting Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 A.D.2d 792, 792-793 ; see CPLR 3212 [f]; Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v LaMattina & Assoc., Inc., 59 A.D.3d 578 ).
Here, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability prior to the parties' depositions. The defendants did not have an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery (see Amico v Melville Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 39 A.D.3d 784, 785 ). Moreover, to the extent that the defendants allege that the plaintiff may be comparatively negligent, "facts essential to justify opposition to the motion are within the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff and may be revealed through pretrial discovery" (Barletta v Lewis, 237 A.D.2d 238, 238 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, without prejudice to renewal.