Court Opinion

ID: 9964078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 20:10:09.793697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:09.804916
License: Public Domain

Molokotos-Liederman v Molokotos
               2024 NY Slip Op 31450(U)
                     April 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 654888/2023
                  Judge: Lyle E. Frank
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 654888/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LYLE E. FRANK                                               PART                              11M
                                                                                      Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X
                                                                                                  INDEX NO.          654888/2023
                POL YXENI (LINA) MOLOKOTOS-LIEDERMAN,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         11/30/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 - V -

                THANASIS MOLOKOTOS, DIANE VARDAKAS
                MOLOKOTOS, HELEN STASSINOPOULOS MOLOKOTOS,                                          DECISION + ORDER ON
                JAMES SPANOS, PENNY SPANOS                                                                MOTION

                                                         Defendant.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
            13, 14, 15, 16, 17,49,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,65
            were read on this motion to/for                                                        DISMISSAL

                       This action arises out of allegations that plaintiff, as beneficiary of a trust, has suffered

            damages based on the defendants' breach of their fiduciary duties, among other alleged acts of

            misconduct 1.

                       Defendants James Spanos and Penny Spanos move to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to

            CPLR § 321 l(a)(3), (4) and (7) or in the alternative, to remove the action to the New York

            County Surrogate's Court pursuant to CPLR § 325(e). Plaintiff opposes the instant motion.

                       When considering a motion to dismiss based upon CPLR § 3211(a)(7), the court must

            accept the alleged facts as true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable

            inference, and determine whether the facts alleged fit into any cognizable legal theory. Leon v.

            Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 [1994]. On a motion to dismiss the court "merely examines the adequacy

            1
              The Court notes that after oral argument of the instant motion and the other pending motion to dismiss, the parties
            have submitted letters. The Court has not reviewed those post argument submissions and they were not considered
            in rendering its decisions.
                654888/2023 Motion No. 001                                                                            Page 1 of 8

[* 1]                                                                       1 of 8
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 654888/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            of the pleadings", the court "accept as true each and every allegation made by plaintiff and limit

            our inquiry to the legal sufficiency ofplaintiff s claim." Davis v Boeheim, 24 NY3d 262,268

                    The complaint contains four causes of action against James and Penny in their capacities

            as trustees: Count I, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud, Count VI, mismanagement

            of trust assets, Count VII, declaratory judgment, and Count VIII, equitable accounting.

            Penny Spanos

                    Movants contend that the causes of action as against Penny are time-barred. Penny

            became a trustee of the 2001 Trust on February 9, 2001. The January 29, 2015, amendment to

            the 2001 Trust removed Penny as trustee. Thus, movants contend that the statute of limitations

            for any claims against Penny as trustee of the 2001 Trust expired on January 29, 2018, or on

            January 29, 2021, at the latest. The complaint alleges that Penny is being sued in her capacity as

            a trustee of the 2001 Trust.

                    In opposition plaintiff contends "[r]ather, it stems from her role as de facto trustee for the

            2015 Trust, in that she acted alongside James - whose correspondence she sends and with whom

            she participates in phone calls - in allowing the Molokotos Defendants to defraud Lina."

            Plaintiff contends that Penny's fiduciary duties rose from that context, not from her formal role

            in connection with the 2001 Trust which also gives rise to the doctrine of equitable estoppel,

            which tolls the running of the statute of limitations and renders the claims against Penny timely.

            Where the parties have a fiduciary relationship that creates an obligation to inform the plaintiff

            "of facts underlying the claim," equitable estoppel can toll the statute of limitations if the

            defendant conceals those facts.

                    In support of this argument plaintiff cites Ganzi v Ganzi, 183 AD3d 433, 433-34 [1st

            Dept 2020]. Ganzi however does not involve trusts or equitable estoppel, rather it involves

             654888/2023 Motion No. 001                                                             Page 2 of 8

[* 2]                                                      2 of 8
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 654888/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            allegations of breach of fiduciary duties to shareholders based on executing various licensing

            agreements. Ganzi is distinguishable from the instant matter and plaintiff does not expand on the

            basis for its reliance.

                    Plaintiff also cites to Nick, which stands, in part, for the proposition that when it is

            defendant's own "acts of deception" that prevents the commencement oflitigation, there is a

            question of fact as to whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply to toll the statute of

            limitations (Nick v Greenfield, 299 AD2d 172, 173 [1st Dept 2002]).

                    As to plaintiff's arguments regarding a de facto trustee, plaintiff has not cited to any legal

            authority or factual allegations to support that contention. Plaintiff urges this Court to deem its

            own lack of knowledge regarding the existence of the trust as wrongful conduct on behalf of the

            trustees, specifically Penny, for the purposes of tolling the statute of limitations. There are,

            however, no factual allegations to support the argument that equitable estoppel should apply, as

            there is no allegation of misconduct by the trustee defendant that prevented plaintiff from

            learning of the alleged wrongdoing. Rather plaintiff does not allege that Penny exercised control

            over the assets of the 2015 Trust or made any substantive decisions concerning the 2015 Trust at

            all.

                    Here, the Court finds that the complaint as against Penny Spanos is time-barred.

            Moreover, there are insufficient factual allegations to invoke any doctrine tolling or extending

            the statute of limitations for any causes of action as against Penny Spanos. Accordingly, the

            complaint is dismissed in its entirety as against Penny Spanos.

                    The Court will now address each cause of action as alleged against James Spanos.

                    Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Constructive Trust

             654888/2023 Motion No. 001                                                              Page 3 of 8

[* 3]                                                       3 of 8
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 654888/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                    In order to adequately plead a cause of action, plaintiff must allege the existence of a

            fiduciary relationship, misconduct by the defendant and damages caused by the misconduct. See

            Pokoikv Pokoik, 115 AD3d 428,429 [1st Dept 2014]. Pursuant to CPLR § 3016(b), where a

            cause of action alleges breach of trust, "the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated

            in detail".

                    The complaint alleges that James was "never appropriately or sufficiently involved in the

            administration of the trusts" and either had no idea that the Molotokos defendants were misusing

            the assets or was "complicit in the scheme". See NYSCEF Doc. 2, Complaint ,i 16. Further, the

            complaint alleges that in 2022, James admitted that he had not been involved in the management

            of the trusts for nearly 6 years. See id. at ,i 18. Plaintiff alleges that it was "apparent that James

            [ ... ]had not actually taken any affirmative actions as Trustee. Id. at ,i 165. Nor, did James have

            any signing authority or rights with respect to the real property assets held by the trust. Id. at ,i,i

            177, 182.

                    At this stage, the Court finds that the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action as

            against James for breach of fiduciary duty. The Court agrees that the allegations that James did

            nothing and was otherwise complicit in the alleged misconduct of the Molotokos defendants

            mishandling of trust assets are sufficient to survive the instant motion to dismiss.

                    Mismanagement of Trust Assets

                    Defendants seek to dismiss plaintiffs second cause of action for mismanagement of trust

            assets because it is not a cognizable claim, and it is duplicative of the breach of fiduciary cause

            of action.

                    In opposition, plaintiff contends that this is a distinct cause of action and cites to Will of

            Mead, 90 Misc 2d 144, 147 [Sur Ct 1977]; Matter of Hahn, 62 NY2d 821 [1984] and an article

             654888/2023 Motion No. 001                                                               Page 4 of 8

[* 4]                                                       4 of 8
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 654888/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            to support this contention. Plaintiff contends that this cause of action is not duplicative of the

            breach of fiduciary claims because additional allegations must be made and proven to recover,

            unlike claims pursuant to breach of fiduciary duty. However, plaintiff does not expand upon that

            statement to provide the additional allegations distinguishable from the breach of fiduciary duty

            cause of action.

                    The Court finds that neither case cited by plaintiff, nor the article are persuasive or refute

            defendants' prima facie showing that mismanagement of trust assets is not a viable cause of

            action in New York and even assuming that it was is duplicative of the breach of fiduciary duty

            claim. Accordingly, the sixth cause of action alleging mismanagement of trust assets is

            dismissed.

                    Declaratory Judgment

                    Defendants contend that the complaint fails to state a cause of action as it is inappropriate

            in the instant action. In opposition, plaintiff contends that this cause of action should not be

            dismissed because the "need may arise for a judicial declaration". Plaintiff does not

            substantively oppose defendants' prima facie showing that the relief plaintiff seeks is duplicative

            of its cause of action seeking an accounting and the action pending in the Surrogates Court and is

            not appropriate, see (Spitzer v Schussel, 48 AD3d 233,234 [1st Dept 2008]).

                    Accordingly, the seventh cause of action seeking declaratory judgment is dismissed.

                    Equitable Accounting

                    Defendants contend that this cause of action should be dismissed because plaintiff has

            failed to adequately plead a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. As the Court has

            previously found, the complaint sufficiently alleges facts to maintain that cause of action, as such

            the Court does not find that an adequate basis to dismiss this cause of action.

             654888/2023 Motion No. 001                                                             Page 5 of 8

[* 5]                                                      5 of 8
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 654888/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                    Defendants do not submit an alternative argument in support for the dismissal of this

            cause of action, as such it survives the instant motion.

                    The Court declines to dismiss the instant action based on the pending action in

            Surrogate's Court. Although the pending Surrogate's Court accounting relates to one named

            defendant in this action, it is undisputed that the Molotokos defendants are not parties to that

            action, therefore the claims asserted against them here are not duplicative of the pending action

            and therefore dismissal is not appropriate.

                    This Court does however find that movants have established that it is appropriate to

            remove the instant action to Surrogate's Court. In support of its removal argument defendants

            rely on In re Estate ofBrandt, 81 AD2d 268 [1st Dept 1981] to support the argument that

            although the Molotokos defendants are not trustees the Surrogates Court may still adjudicate the

            claims asserted against them. In Brandt, the First Department held that the Surrogates Court

            maintained jurisdiction over the claims asserted against the non-trustee defendants. The claims

            there were similar to the claims asserted here, in that it is alleged that the defendants conspired or

            as stated here were complicit, in a scheme that diverted trust assets. The First Department held

            that "the Surrogate's Court should retain jurisdiction over the entire matter to provide a single

            forum for resolution of the claims, inextricably interwoven, against both the [third-party

            defendants] and the trustees." Id. at 278. Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part in that the complaint is

            dismissed in its entirety as against Penny Spanos as time-barred; and it is further

                    ORDERED that plaintiffs sixth cause of action alleging mismanagement of trust assets is

            dismissed as against James Spanos; and it is further

             654888/2023 Motion No. 001                                                             Page 6 of 8

[* 6]                                                      6 of 8
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 654888/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                      ORDERED that plaintiffs seventh cause of action seeking declaratory judgment is

            dismissed; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the motion of James Spanos is granted and the remaining claims in this

            action shall be removed to the Surrogate's Court of said county pursuant to CPLR 325 (e); and it

            is further

                      ORDERED that, within 30 days from entry of this order, counsel for the plaintiff herein

            shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry upon the Clerk of this Court and shall contact

            the staff of the Clerk to arrange for the effectuation of the transfer in an efficient manner; and it is

            further

                      ORDERED that the Clerk shall transfer this action and all documents filed herein to said

            Court; and it is further

                      ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court shall be made in accordance with

            the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for

            Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website)]

            ; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court and the Clerk of the Surrogate's Court shall

            coordinate the transfer of the documents in the file in this case so as to ensure an efficient transfer

            and minimize insofar as practical the reproduction of documents, including with regard to

            documents that may be in digital format.

             654888/2023 Motion No. 001                                                              Page 7 of 8

[* 7]                                                       7 of 8
                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 654888/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 70                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                    4/19/2024
                      DATE                                                              LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C.

                                          ~                                ~
             CHECK ONE:                       CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                              □ DENIED
                                                                                                        □
                                              GRANTED                          GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

             APPLICATION:                     SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                        □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:            INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT        REFERENCE

             654888/2023 Motion No. 001                                                                  Page 8 of 8

[* 8]                                                           8 of 8