Opinion
July 6, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended third-party complaint is granted, and the cross motion for leave to amend the amended third-party complaint is denied.
The proposed "second amended and supplemental third-party complaint" fails to state any cause of action arising from or conditioned upon the liability of the third-party plaintiff Paula Moskwik claimed by the plaintiffs Karl and Ellen Sklar (hereinafter the Sklars) in the main action. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended third-party complaint should have been granted and the cross motion to amend the amended third-party complaint is denied (see, Lucci v Lucci, 150 A.D.2d 649; Probst v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 82 A.D.2d 739). The record reveals no evidence of a partnership or a joint venture involving Moskwik and the appellant that could provide grounds for requiring an accounting (see, Partnership Law § 40; Ramirez v. Goldberg, 82 A.D.2d 850). The appellant never signed either of the promissory notes executed by Moskwik to the Sklars, nor does the proposed "second amended and supplemental third-party complaint" set forth any other grounds for a claim that the appellant is under a duty to indemnify Moskwik for the amount of any award or judgment based on those notes. Finally, no grounds are stated for a cause of action based on intentional infliction of emotional distress (see, Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 135). Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.