Opinion
May 9, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the action as against the defendant Rex Realty Co., and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the plaintiff that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant Rex Realty Co. (hereinafter Rex). Pursuant to CPLR 1001 (a), a person or entity should be joined as a party where such joinder would facilitate the affording of complete relief or where that person or entity might be inequitably affected by a judgment rendered in the action. Here, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief arising from his alleged wrongful discharge as the managing partner of the defendant Tura Associates. It is undisputed that Rex was retained to succeed the plaintiff in the performance of managerial duties for the partnership. Inasmuch as the complaint seeks, inter alia, to enjoin Rex from continuing to manage the partnership business and to compel Rex to turn over to the plaintiff certain records pertaining to the business, Rex was properly named as a defendant in this action (see, e.g., Town of Brookhaven v. Chun Enters., 71 N.Y.2d 953; Matter of Mount Pleasant Cottage School Union Free School Dist. v. Sobol, 163 A.D.2d 715, affd 78 N.Y.2d 935; Matter of Basher v. Town of Evans, 112 A.D.2d 4).
The Supreme Court properly struck the plaintiff's demand for punitive damages, since the action seeks to redress a private wrong based on an alleged breach of contract and the allegations of the complaint fail to make out any wanton, willful, or malicious conduct on the part of the defendants (see generally, Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., 75 N.Y.2d 196; Halpin v. Prudential Ins. Co., 48 N.Y.2d 906; Goldberg v. Active Fire Sprinkler Corp., 194 A.D.2d 765; Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v Pyramid Champlain Co., 193 A.D.2d 928).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient facts to support his cross motion to disqualify the law firm representing the defendants (see, S S Hotel Ventures Ltd. Partnership v. 777 S.H. Corp., 69 N.Y.2d 437; Feeley v. Midas Props., 199 A.D.2d 238; Plotkin v. Interco Dev. Corp., 137 A.D.2d 671). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.