Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against defendant Seiko for, inter alia, tortious interference with contractual relations in allegedly inducing defendant William Akata to breach an employment agreement with the plaintiff. Defendant Seiko moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and, in opposing papers, plaintiff sought an opportunity to conduct discovery concerning defendant Seiko's knowledge of the employment agreement.
It is well-settled that where a party is unable to effectively oppose a motion for summary judgment because the evidence needed is within the exclusive knowledge of the moving party, the court may deny the motion, without prejudice, or refrain from ruling on the motion pending further disclosure (CPLR 3212 [f]; Denkensohn v. Davenport, 130 A.D.2d 860, 861).
The denial of summary judgment was particularly appropriate here, as the information necessary to oppose the summary judgment motion, whether defendant Seiko knowingly and intentionally interfered with the employment agreement, was exclusively within defendant's knowledge (Simpson v. Term Indus., 126 A.D.2d 484, 486).
We have reviewed defendant Seiko's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Kassal, JJ.