In Tahini Investments, Ltd. v. Bobrowsky, 99 A.D.2d 489 (2nd Dept. 1984) defendant represented to plaintiff that the 93-acre farm which plaintiff sought to purchase was principally used as a horse farm. Ten months after the closing, plaintiff's workers discovered two dozen rusted drums buried underground containing industrial waste, which was nontoxic but could be potentially hazardous to livestock. The Appellate Division, Second Department, in finding triable issues of fact, stated the following [99 A.D.2d at 490]: "The conflicting affidavits present triable issues of fact precluding the award of summary judgment (CPLR 3212, subd. [b]). Where a party to a contract conceals a material fact which he is in good faith bound to disclose, such silence may constitute an actionable misrepresentation (Rosenchein v. McNally, 17 A.D.2d 834, 233 N.Y.S.2d 254; Noved Realty Corp. v. A.A.P. Co., 250 App.Div. 1, 293 N.Y.S. 336). Furthermore, even where the parties have executed a specific disclaimer of reliance on a seller's representations, a purchaser may not be precluded from claiming reliance on any oral misrepresentations if the facts allegedly misrepresented are peculiarly within the seller's knowledge (Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris, 5 N.Y.2d 317, 322, 184 N.Y.S.2d 599, 157 N.E.2d 597; O'Keeffe v. Hicks, 74 A.D.2d 919, 426 N.Y.S.2d 315). The material issues of whether defendant knew of the existence of the dumping site and whether plaintiff could have ascertained the site's presence with reasonable diligence, present questions of fact which may not be resolved on motion papers."