Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
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 v. Meyner Landis, 89 N.Y.2d 123, 131, rearg denied 89 N.Y.2d 917). 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). 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; 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).