The cause of action for an accounting was properly upheld since, among other reasons, the accountant's cash flow analysis and affidavit on which appellant relied in support of the motion do not specify the documentation underlying the accountant's opinion, and for the most are hearsay (see Soho Generation v. Tri-City Ins. Brokers, 256 A.D.2d 229, 231-232). Accordingly, the burden never shifted to petitioners to submit evidence in opposition (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853). Petitioners' other claims regarding appellant's alleged mismanagement of the trusts were properly upheld, there being issues of fact as to whether appellant's exercise of discretion in declining to make distributions was arbitrary, irrational or not made in good faith (see Dalton v. Educational Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 389). The motion court also properly held that allegations of mismanagement of corporations in which the trusts hold an interest were properly made by petitioners directly, and did not require a derivative action, since petitioners do not seek to compel a declaration of dividends (see Matter of Brandt, 81 A.D.2d 268; compare, Matter of Goerler, 227 A.D.2d 479). However, we modify to dismiss as untimely the fraud cause of action, based as it is on appellant's alleged misrepresentations to the grantor at the inception of the trust more than six years before the filing of the complaint. We have considered the parties' other contentions, including those of petitioners that their fraud claim is saved by a delayed discovery accrual date, and those of appellant challenging the cause of action to remove him as trustee, and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.