Justice David Schmidt
Plaintiffs moved for leave to renew and reargue a portion of the court’s Dec. 21, 2012 decision which dismissed the complaint against Horvit, and upon same, sought reinstatement of Horvit as a party defendant. Plaintiffs entered into a partnership agreement with Vitale and others to sell 9 cooperative residential apartments in 1986, which were sold between 1986 and 2008. Plaintiffs alleged that despite being 50 percent partners, they only received $679,816 in distributions from over $3.357 million of the proceeds. Vitale and Horvit moved to dismiss the complaint. The prior order denied dismissal against Vitale, but dismissed the complaint against Horvit finding he was not a party to the 1986 agreement. Plaintiffs alleged the agreement noted that any recipient who was sold or received shares of the partnership, must become a party to the agrement as a precondition of such sale or transfer. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue, and upon reargument, denied defendants’ motion which sought dismissal of the complaint against Horvit, finding Horvit became a party to the agreement as a precondition to the sale and/or transfer of the partnership shares. As such, he was a necessary party in an accounting action.
