Opinion
October 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the order entered September 20, 1993, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered August 12, 1994, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered March 25, 1994, is modified by deleting the provision thereof which, upon reargument, vacated so much of the order entered September 20, 1993, as denied the plaintiff's cross motion to add a cause of action to recover damages based on a claim of wrongful dissolution and granted the plaintiff's cross motion to add that cause of action, and substituting therefor a provision adhering to so much of the order entered September 20, 1993, as denied that cross motion; as so modified, the order entered March 25, 1994, is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
"It is well settled that leave to amend or supplement pleadings should be freely granted, unless the amendment sought is palpably improper or insufficient as a matter of law" (Nissenbaum v Ferazzoli, 171 A.D.2d 654, 655; see, CPLR 3025 [b]). The plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages based on a claim of wrongful dissolution of the defendant firm. However, the defendant Kenyon Kenyon was a partnership at will. Therefore, the partnership could have been dissolved at any time without breaching the partnership agreement (see, Partnership Law § 62; De Martino v. Pensavalle, 56 A.D.2d 589; Malmeth v. Schneider, 18 A.D.2d 1030). Thus, the plaintiff's sole remedy against the defendants was for an accounting, not damages (see, Napoli v. Domnitch, 18 A.D.2d 707).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.