Grossman v. BakerGrossman v. Baker
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court was correct in denying defendant’s summary judgment motion seeking an interlocutory judgment of partition and sale. Although the right to partition is governed by statute (RPAPL 901 et seq.), and is absolute in the absence of countervailing conditions (Chew v Sheldon,
Here, because of the commingling of income and expenses of the family properties and the unique ownership arrangement in those properties, there are important financial questions to be resolved that require an accounting. An accounting is a "necessary incident” of a partition action (Worthing v Cossar,
Supreme Court should have granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defenses asserting unclean hands and estoppel. Although partition is subject to the equities between the parties (Ripp v Ripp,