N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Partnership / ARTICLE Relations of Partners to One Another
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Partnership Law § 44 (2026)

Right to an account

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 44. Right to an account.  Any partner shall have the right to a
formal account as to partnership affairs:
  1. If he is wrongfully excluded from the partnership business or
possession of its property by his copartners,
  2. If the right exists under the terms of any agreement,
  3. As provided by section forty-three,
  4. Whenever other circumstances render it just and reasonable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Mills v. Chauvin, 103 A.D.3d 1041 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mills v. Chauvin, 103 A.D.3d 1041 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · cites it 2× “However, there was no written partnership agreement that allowed the partners to call for an accounting (see Partnership Law § 44 [2]), and the record does not establish that Mills breached his fiduciary duty to Chauvin with respect to the partnership (see Goldman v Rio, 62 AD3d…”
Cognetta v. Valencia Developers, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). “The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the cause of action of the plaintiff Benjamin Cognetta seeking a partnership accounting of Associates from the defendants Santina Martella, Vincent J. Sorena, Michael A.”
Ebker v. Tan Jay Int'l Ltd., 741 F. Supp. 448 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). “ker line, confiscated all of the contents of the 37th Street warehouse, continued to ship the “Nancy Ebker” line in a haphazard fashion and shipped “Nancy Ebker” merchandise to customers after removing the labels, and finally appropriated for his own use all of the contents of…”
Newburger, Loeb & Co., Inc. v. Gross, 365 F. Supp. 1364 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). “N.Y. Partnership Law § 44 (McKinney 1948).”
Goldman v. Rio, 62 A.D.3d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “According to the complaint, the plaintiff, a former attorney and law partner of the individual defendant, seeks an accounting of the partnership’s affairs and to recover “all monies owed to the plaintiff’ (see Partnership Law § 44).”
Carella v. Scholet, 34 A.D.3d 915 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “Finally, upon dissolution of the partnership, plaintiffs were entitled to a full accounting, not just an abbreviated list of income and expenses (see Shandell v Katz, 95 AD2d 742, 743 [1983]; see also Partnership Law § 44; Aaron v Aaron, 2 AD3d 942, 944 [2003]).”
Connolly v. Napoli, Kaiser & Bern, LLP, 12 Misc. 3d 530 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006). “(Partnership Law § 44; Vitale v Steinberg, 307 AD2d 107, 110 [1st Dept 2003].”
Denburg v. Flattau, 184 A.D.2d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). “The proper mechanism for determining the precise amount owed is an accounting (see, Munyan v Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, 99 AD2d 716 ; see also, Partnership Law § 44) and we remand for that purpose.”
Elghanayan v. Elghanayan, 190 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). “Yet, so long as a partnership *454 remains in existence, any partner has the right to a formal accounting (Partnership Law § 44). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, by finding that the cause of action of the main plaintiffs accrued at the latest when the Iranian elders mediated or…”
Tanzi v. Vergopia, 128 A.D.2d 769 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). “The finding that the plaintiff is entitled to an accounting is fully supported by the record (see, Partnership Law § 44). Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, JJ.”
Tesla v. Pelinkovic (S.D.N.Y. 2025). · cites it 2× “In addition, under Partnership Law § 44, an accounting is not automatic merely by alleging an oral partnership agreement, primarily because it is axiomatic that it is only available to “any partner.”
Mills v. Chauvin, 103 A.D.3d 1041 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · cites it 2× “However, there was no written partnership agreement that allowed the partners to call for an accounting (see Partnership Law § 44 [2]), and the record does not establish that Mills breached his fiduciary duty to Chauvin with respect to the partnership (see Goldman v Rio, 62 AD3d…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.