Wilson v. Milonas

2025 NY Slip Op 51185(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 152078/2025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Wilson v Milonas (2025 NY Slip Op 51185(U)) [*1]

Wilson v Milonas

2025 NY Slip Op 51185(U)

Decided on July 22, 2025

Supreme Court, New York County

Crawford, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 22, 2025

Supreme Court, New York County

Christopher T. Wilson, Petitioner, against Sofia Milonas, CLAIRE MILONAS, JOSHUA CENDER, CONSTANTINA PAPAGEORGIOU, and EVRIDIKI POUMPOURIDIS, Respondents.

Index No. 152078/2025
Ashlee Crawford, J.

Petitioner Christopher T. Wilson brings this special proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) to obtain pre-action discovery consisting of a trust agreement for the "Milonas Family Trust of 1990" (the "1990 Trust"); a settlement agreement related to the trust; and to identify the trustees of the trust and the "eight family units" who allegedly received distributions or benefits from the trust under the settlement agreement.

Petitioner contends that he is the non-marital son of decedent Spiros Nicholas Milonas, who died in 2022, leaving an estate of about $500 million. Concerning his alleged familial relationship to decedent, petitioner states that he submitted his DNA to 23andMe, which showed he has 20.77% shared DNA with a half-sister identified as "CM," who petitioner claims upon information and belief is decedent's daughter, respondent Claire Milonas (Wilson Aff. at ¶ 11 and Ex. 3 [NYSCEF Docs. 4, 8]; Memo of Law in Supp. at 11-12 [NYSCEF Doc. 2]). This alleged filiation to decedent, petitioner argues, gives him standing as a beneficiary of the 1990 [*2]Trust under New York law; renders him a necessary party to any settlement arising therefrom; and entitles him to information concerning the trust and settlement (Memo of Law in Supp. at 2-4, 7). Petitioner further argues that he "must have access to the terms, provisions and conditions of the [1990 Trust] and the global settlement agreement in order to properly frame his legal claims" for breach of fiduciary duty, an accounting, the claw back of improper distribution of trust assets, and vacatur of the settlement agreement related to the trust (id. at 3-4 [emphasis added]; see also id. at 5, 7, 9, 11, 14).

In opposition, decedent's daughters, respondents Sofia Milonas and Claire Milonas, submit a letter dated April 11, 2025, in which their counsel informed petitioner that the factual assumptions underpinning his petition are incorrect (Ex. A to Dunn Affirm. [NYSCEF Doc. 34]). Counsel explained that decedent was not the settlor of the 1990 Trust; and the beneficiaries of the trust are only decedent's daughters. Counsel referenced his prior letter dated March 6, 2025, which explained that the settlement agreement resolved disputes and pending litigation between decedent; his wife, non-party Antonia Milonas; and certain family companies, and did not, as petitioner alleges, distribute trust assets to "eight family units" (id.; see also Index No. 152086/2025, Ex. A to Dunn Affirm. [NYSCEF Doc. 33]). As proof, counsel provided petitioner with the first page of the settlement agreement (3/6/25 Letter). Finally, as explained in the March 6th letter, decedent's 2015 will was executed about 20 years after petitioner claims to have first met decedent, does not mention petitioner, and was filed with Surrogate's Court for safekeeping in 2021, prior to decedent's death (id.; see Decedent's Will [Index No. 152086/2025, NYSCEF Doc. 47]).^[FN1]

Further, the Milonas respondents argue that petitioner lacks standing to demand discovery related to the trust, because he has no claim to the trust assets and cannot challenge the trust instrument (Memo of Law in Opp. at 3-4 [NYSCEF Doc. 38]). They stress that they have provided petitioner with the identities of the trustees and trust beneficiaries, and offered to allow him to review the trust documents, thereby providing him with sufficient information to frame a complaint. Respondents insist that petitioner is engaged in a speculative fishing expedition and does not present a meritorious cause of action (id. at 1-2, 5, 7; Ex. C to Dunn Affirm, 4/24/25 Letter [NYSCEF Doc. 36]).^[FN2]

"To obtain pre-action disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3102, a petitioner must demonstrate it has [a] sufficient factual basis to assert a meritorious cause of action and that the information [*3]sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong" (Matter of Khorassani v Financial Indus. Regulatory Auth., 223 AD3d 589, 590 [1st Dept 2024][internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Sandals Resorts Intern. Ltd. v Google, Inc., 86 AD3d 32, 38 [1st Dept 2011]; CPLR 3102[c]). "Pre-action discovery is not permissible as a fishing expedition to ascertain whether a cause of action exists" (Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc. v Confidential Glob. Investigations, 205 AD3d 539, 539 [1st Dept 2022][internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Bishop v Stevenson Commons Assoc., L.P., 74 AD3d 640, 641 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 702 [2011]). Whether a party has demonstrated its entitlement to pre-action discovery under CPLR 3102(c) is a determination within the sound discretion of the trial court (id.; see Sokolova v City of New York, 224 AD3d 522, 523 [1st Dept 2024]; Walker v Sandberg & Sikorski Corp. Firestone, Inc., 102 AD3d 415, 415 [1st Dept 2013]).

Here, petitioner is not entitled to the pre-action discovery sought, as he has not shown that he has a meritorious cause of action or that the information he seeks is "material and necessary" to an actionable wrong (Matter of Oved & Oved LLP v Google, LLC, 231 AD3d 582, 582 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 902 [2025]; Matter of Johnson v Union Bank of Switzerland, AG, 150 AD3d 436, 436 [1st Dept 2017]; cf. Delgrange v RealReal, 182 AD3d 421, 422 [1st Dept 2020], lv dismissed 36 NY3d 955 [2020]; Matter of Camara v Skanska, Inc., 150 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dept 2017]). In the first instance, petitioner has not established through competent or reliable proof that he is decedent's son. He simply presents a document from a retail DNA company, the reliability of which is unclear, and which purports to show his relation to an unknown person identified only as "CM" (cf. EPTL 4-1.2 [clear and convincing standard]). Additionally, petitioner's assertion that he is or should be a beneficiary of the trust is pure speculation, and his efforts to obtain the trust documents and related settlement agreement are the kind of fishing expedition that CPLR 3102 protects against (Matter of Khorassani v Financial Indus. Regulatory Auth., 223 AD3d at 590; Matter of GTV Media Group, Inc. v Confidential Glob. Investigations, 205 AD3d 539, 539 [1st Dept 2022]). Indeed, petitioner concedes that he seeks the discovery, not simply to identify would-be defendants, but to "properly frame his legal claims" (Memo of Law in Supp. at 3-4 [emphasis added]; see also id. at 5, 7, 9, 11, 14). Finally, to the extent petitioner believes he is entitled to inherit under decedent's will, which is both on file in Surrogate's Court and in the record in the parallel proceeding for pre-action discovery related to the Aegean Trust (Index No. 152086/2025, NYSCEF Docs. 47-48), he is already in possession of facts sufficient to frame his complaint (White v New York City Tr. Auth., 198 AD3d 557, 557 [1st Dept 2021]; Bishop, supra at 641).^[FN3]

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that the petition by petitioner Christopher T. Wilson for pre-action discovery related to the "Milonas Family Trust of 1990" is DENIED and this proceeding is DISMISSED with prejudice.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

DATE 7/22/2025

ASHLEE CRAWFORD, J.S.C.

Footnotes

Footnote 1:Decedent's will provides that, as employed therein, "[t]he terms 'descendants' and 'issue' have the same meaning," and "[r]eferences to descendants of any degree (i) shall include only CLAIRE MILONAS, SOFIA MILONAS . . . and their respective descendants" (Will at ¶ 11[D]-[E][Index No. 152086/2025, NYSCEF Doc. 47] [emphasis added]).

Footnote 2:Respondent Joshua Cender, who formerly served as General Counsel and Chief Operating Officer of decedent's company, Ionian Management, Inc., takes no position regarding the merits of the petition (Cender Affirm. at ¶¶ 3-4 [NYSCEF Doc. 31]). Respondent Evridiki Poumpouridis, a Court-appointed guardian ad litem in decedent's guardianship proceeding, denies personal jurisdiction over her without moving to dismiss, and emphasizes the chilling effect on guardianships if this suit were permitted to proceed against her in her appointed capacity (Poumpouridis Affirm. at ¶¶ 1-3 [NYSCEF Doc. 39]).

Footnote 3:The Court also notes that the Surrogate is particularly well-positioned to determine questions of petitioner's filiation to decedent, and any right he may have to inherit under the will.