Tsoukas v. Tsoukas

Decision Date18 February 2015
Citation4 N.Y.S.3d 261,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01463,125 A.D.3d 872
PartiesIn the Matter of Sotirios TSOUKAS, also known as Steve Tsoukas, etc., appellant, v. Konstantinos TSOUKAS, et al., respondents. (Matter No. 1) Konstantinos Tsoukas, etc., respondent, v. Minas Tsoukas, et al., appellants. (Matter No. 2).
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

J. Papapanayotou, Long Island City, N.Y., for appellants.

John Z. Marangos, Staten Island, N.Y., for respondents.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104(a) for the judicial dissolution of a corporation (Matter No. 1), and a related action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets (Matter No. 2), which were joined for trial, Sotirios Tsoukas, also known as Steve Tsoukas, sued in Matter No. 2 as Sotiros Tsoukas, Minas Tsoukas, Panayiotis Tsoukas, and Greg Tsoukas appeal (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated April 25, 2013, as granted the motion of Konstantinos Tsoukas and Grecian Pools International Corp. to confirm a referee's report (Corrigan, Ct.Atty.Ref.) dated March 19, 2013, made after a hearing, in effect, denied their cross motion to disaffirm the referee's report, and denied Sotirios Tsoukas' motion to vacate his default in appearing at a hearing on his prior motion to vacate an order of the same court dated April 12, 2012, made upon his failure to appear at a certain valuation hearing in Matter No. 1, (2) from a judgment of the same court dated May 9, 2013, (3) from so much of an order of the same court dated October 7, 2013, as denied that branch of their motion which was to vacate the judgment dated May 9, 2013, and (4) from an amended judgment of the same court dated October 9, 2013, which, upon, inter alia, the order dated April 25, 2013, is in favor of Konstantinos Tsoukas and against them, in effect, jointly and severally, in the principal sum of $301,102.19.

ORDERED that the appeals from the order dated April 25, 2013, the order dated October 7, 2013, and the judgment dated May 9, 2013, are dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the amended judgment dated October 9, 2013, is modified, on the law and the facts, (1) by deleting the provision thereof awarding damages in favor of Konstantinos Tsoukas, and substituting therefor a provision awarding damages in favor of Grecian Pools International Corp., (2) by reducing the damages awarded from the principal sum of $301,102.19 to the principal sum of $272,331.07, and (3) by deleting the provision thereof, in effect, holding Sotirios Tsoukas, Minas Tsoukas, Panayiotis Tsoukas, and Greg Tsoukas jointly and severally liable for the principal sum awarded, and substituting therefor provisions apportioning liability among them so that the award is against Sotirios Tsoukas and Minas Tsoukas in the principal sum of $268,752.07 and against Panayiotis Tsoukas and Greg Tsoukas in the principal sum of $3,579; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed, the order dated April 25, 2013, is modified accordingly, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for the entry of an appropriate second amended judgment; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to Konstantinos Tsoukas and Grecian Pools International Corp.

The appeals from the orders dated April 25, 2013, and October 7, 2013, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment and amended judgment, respectively, in these matters (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 ). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the amended judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1] ). The appeal from the judgment dated May 9, 2013, must also be dismissed, as that judgment was superseded by the amended judgment.

These two related matters arise from disputes over a family-owned business, Grecian Pools International Corp. (hereinafter Grecian Pools), which engages in the sale of swimming pools and pool supplies. Konstantinos Tsoukas (hereinafter Gus), Minas Tsoukas (hereinafter Mike), and Sotirios Tsoukas, also known as Steve Tsoukas (hereinafter Steve), are brothers. Gus and Mike, who were both directors and officers of Grecian Pools, each owned 50% of the outstanding shares of Grecian Pools. Their brother Steve worked for Grecian Pools, apparently as an independent contractor. Additionally, Mike's sons, Greg Tsoukas and Panayiotis Tsoukas (hereinafter Peter), and Gus's son, Nektarios Tsoukas (hereinafter Nick), were employed by Grecian Pools.

In 2010, after tensions developed over the management of Grecian Pools, Mike allegedly assigned his 50% interest in Grecian Pools to Steve. Thereafter, Greg and Peter allegedly started a competing pool business and Gus allegedly established his own pool business. These matters were both commenced in February 2011. In this regard, Steve commenced Matter No. 1, a proceeding pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104(a)(3) for the dissolution of Grecian Pools (hereinafter the dissolution proceeding). Gus, individually, and on behalf of Grecian Pools, commenced Matter No. 2, an action alleging that Mike, Steve, Greg, and Peter (hereinafter collectively the Mike parties) wrongfully misappropriated Grecian Pools' assets, converted assets of Grecian Pools for personal use, and violated their fiduciary duties to Grecian Pools (hereinafter the Grecian Pools action). In March 2011, the Supreme Court appointed Gina M. Sgarlato as a temporary receiver for Grecian Pools, and Gus filed a notice of election pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1118 to purchase the other 50% of Grecian Pools shares at fair market value. In an order dated April 12, 2012, the Supreme Court, upon Steve's failure to appear at a hearing to determine the value of Green Pools, granted Gus's election and authorized the temporary receiver to retain an accountant to conduct a “market value method” valuation of Grecian Pools.

In August 2012, the Supreme Court referred both matters to a referee to hear and report on the offsets, payments, or reductions due to the parties. In a report dated March 19, 2013, made after a hearing, the referee found that Grecian Pools should be reimbursed for certain work performed by Mike and Steve for which customer payments were not turned over to Grecian Pools, expenses incurred by Grecian Pools to purchase materials largely on behalf of Steve and Mike, certain improper charges by Greg and Peter on Grecian Pools' credit card and EZ Pass accounts, and one-half of the value of a retirement plan. The referee specifically found that Mike and Steve were responsible for paying the principal sum of $268,752.07 to Grecian Pools, that Peter and Greg were responsible for the principal sum of $3,579, and that one-half of the value of a retirement plan, $28,771.12, was owed by Mike, the trustee of the plan. Consequently, the referee recommended that Grecian Pools should be awarded the total principal sum of $301,102.19. The referee, however, found no evidence to support the causes of action in the Grecian Pools action alleging breach of the duty of good faith and loyalty insofar as asserted against Peter and Greg, nor any evidence to support the cause of action alleging that Mike aided and abetted Peter and Greg in any breach of the duty of good faith and loyalty. Consequently, the referee, in effect, recommended dismissal of those causes of action.

In an order dated April 25, 2013, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the motion of Gus and Grecian Pools (hereinafter together the Grecian parties) to confirm the referee's report and denied Steve's motion to vacate his default in appearing at a hearing on a prior motion he made to vacate the order made upon his failure to appear at the valuation hearing. An amended judgment was ultimately entered in favor of Gus and against the Mike parties, in effect, jointly and severally, in the principal sum of $301,102.19.

Contrary to the Mike parties' contentions, Gus, in his capacity as an officer of Grecian Pools, had standing to commence the Grecian Pools action and was not required to comply with the rules pertaining to a shareholder's derivative action (see Business Corporation Law § 720[b] ; Rapoport v. Schneider, 29 N.Y.2d 396, 400, 328 N.Y.S.2d 431, 278 N.E.2d 642 ; Brown v. Brown, 143 A.D.2d 248, 249, 532 N.Y.S.2d 157 ; Conant v. Schnall, 33 A.D.2d 326, 327–328, 307 N.Y.S.2d 902 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Grecian Pools action based upon Gus' alleged lack of standing.

The Mike parties also did not establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in the Grecian Pools action dismissing the causes of action alleging waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Hayden v. Vevante
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 29, 2020
    ... ... Mattam, 172 A.D.3d 813, 814, 101 N.Y.S.3d 162 ; GMAC Mtge., LLC v. Guccione, 127 A.D.3d 1136, 1138, 9 N.Y.S.3d 83 ; Matter of Tsoukas v. Tsoukas, 125 A.D.3d 872, 876, 4 N.Y.S.3d 261 ). Other factors to be considered include whether the default prejudiced the opposing party, whether ... ...
  • Valyrakis v. 346 W. 48th St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 1, 2018
    ... ... of action pursuant to Business Corporation Law 720 without a presuit demand, because she is a director of the corporation (see Matter of Tsoukas v. Tsoukas, 125 A.D.3d 872, 875, 4 N.Y.S.3d 261 [2d Dept. 2015] ). Since this is an issue of law, it may be raised for the first time on appeal (see ... ...
  • Glaubach v. Slifkin
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 17, 2019
    ... ... to serve a demand upon the board 171 A.D.3d 1024of directors prior to suit or allege that such a demand would be futile (see Matter of Tsoukas v. Tsoukas, 125 A.D.3d 872, 875, 4 N.Y.S.3d 261 ; Conant v. Schnall, 33 A.D.2d 326, 328, 307 N.Y.S.2d 902 ). However, because the amended complaint ... ...
  • Fernandez v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 18, 2015
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT