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.