IN RE: Ferdo GRGUREV et al. (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joel M. Cohen, J.), entered July 26, 2023, which denied petitioners' motions to strike respondents' expert testimony, accepted the equitable accounting submitted by respondents, and denied the objections and claims filed by petitioners, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In a prior appeal in this matter, this Court modified a judgment, which had denied petitioners' application to direct respondents to produce an accounting for respondent Ocinomled, Ltd. for the years 2011 through 2019, and directed respondents to produce the accounting (Matter of Grgurev v. Licul, 203 A.D.3d 624, 625, 165 N.Y.S.3d 63 [1st Dept. 2022], lv dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 1171, 174 N.Y.S.3d 694, 195 N.E.3d 528 [2022]).  Petitioners then challenged the resulting equitable accounting submitted by respondents' expert witness, moving to strike the expert witness's testimony and evidence on the basis that she relied on improper methodology and documentation to account for how funds were expended.

Respondents demonstrated by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the equitable accounting was accurate and complete so as to sufficiently demonstrate how the company funds at issue were expended (see Liddle, Robinson & Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 12 A.D.3d 282, 284, 785 N.Y.S.2d 70 [1st Dept. 2004]).  We reject petitioners' argument that the expert's testimony on the equitable accounting was so flawed that it should have been stricken by Supreme Court.  The trial court correctly concluded that despite certain gaps, the accounting adequately demonstrated that the amounts questioned by petitioners were actual expenses of the business, and the trial court providently exercised its discretion in accepting the accounting (see e.g. Soley v. Wasserman, 639 Fed.Appx. 670, 677 [2d Cir.2016]).

We have considered petitioners' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.