Opinion
April 28, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.
Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Fallon and Callahan, JJ.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The previous denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment (Pennino v Lasersurge, Inc., 178 A.D.2d 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 A.D.2d 800, 801, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 704; Chiarello v Harold Sylvan, P.C., 161 A.D.2d 948, 949; cf., Ashford v Rochester Hosp. Serv. Corp., 214 A.D.2d 954 [decided herewith]). Supreme Court properly concluded, however, that the new information did not warrant a different result. Questions of fact remain with respect to the alleged agreement to sell plaintiff stock in defendant Lasersurge, Inc. (see, Pennino v Lasersurge, Inc., supra), as well as plaintiff's entitlement to recover for services rendered to defendants based upon theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. The court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's cross motion to compel further disclosure. The information sought is relevant to the amount of plaintiff's damages under the fourth cause of action alleging unjust enrichment (see, Graphic Offset Co. v Torre, 78 A.D.2d 788).