Pennino v. Lasersurge, Inc.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The previous denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Pennino v Lasersurge, Inc., 178 *960AD2d 939), made before discovery was initiated, did not preclude a second motion based upon new information elicited during disclosure (see, Schriptek Mktg. v Columbus McKinnon Corp., 187 AD2d 800, 801, lv denied 81 NY2d 704; Chiarello v Harold Sylvan, P. C., 161 AD2d 948, 949; cf., Ashford v Rochester Hosp. Serv. Corp., 214 AD2d 954 [decided herewith]). Supreme Court properly concluded, however, that the new information did not warrant a different…