ESTATE OF WALTER WONG, Deceased (16-385/B/C/D) — The court grants this unopposed petition En Fu Zhong Wong, as Executor under the will of her husband, Walter Wong, to collect and account for the proceeds of an award by the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (the “VCF,” as authorized by Pub L 111-347, 124 Stat 3623 [2011], and further authorized by Pub L 116-34, 133 Stat 1040 [2019] [the "9/11 Acts"]). Decedent, who was in the exposure zone as defined by the 9/11 Acts, died on September 20, 2015, from lung cancer, which he developed after his exposure during and in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The restrictions in the Letters Testamentary issued by this court are modified, and Petitioner is authorized to collect the award proceeds and to execute any receipts and releases as may be required. The award proceeds are allocated as requested in the petition, and in accordance with the Award Detail. Attorneys fees are fixed at a rate of 10 percent of the award inclusive of disbursements, as provided by the 9/11 Acts. The balance of the sum awarded is distributed to Petitioner, En Fu Zhong Wong, for her pecuniary loss suffered (EPTL 5-4.4), and as the sole residuary beneficiary under Decedent’s will. Decree setting the Executor’s account signed. Dated: August 24, 2023
ESTATE OF DAVID A. SCHULTE, JR., Deceased (05-4582/C) ESTATE OF DAVID A. SCHULTE, JR., Deceased (05-4582/H) — At the call of calendar on March 10, 2023, the court denied a motion by Sandra Schulte (Sandra) as Limited Administrator c. t. a. (see SCPA 702, 1418) of the estate of her spouse, David Schulte. Sandra’s motion sought leave to reargue and renew, pursuant to CPLR 2221, two motions, one by her to amend the estate’s cross-claim and another by respondent 1125 Park Avenue Corporation (1125 Park or Co-op) for summary judgment to dismiss that cross-claim. These motions were resolved by the court in 2022. Sandra’s motion also sought leave to renew a prior motion to dismiss of 1125 Park determined in a decision and order of this court from 2016. The court had resolved all three motions in favor of 1125 Park in the following context. Sandra originally brought the underlying petition as co-trustee of a marital trust (the Trust) to which, by decedent’s will, the cooperative shares appurtenant to Penthouse C at 1125 Park Avenue, in which Sandra and decedent had resided and in which Sandra continues to reside, were to be distributed. That petition sought the injunctive relief of directing 1125 Park to transfer these cooperative shares to the Trust, which benefits Sandra during her life. Sandra claimed that the denial of the share transfer to the Trust was made in bad faith to improperly favor a board member of 1125 Park. Decedent’s Executor, his daughter from a prior relationship, Holly Ellison, was made a respondent and had filed a cross-claim against 1125 Park mirroring the allegations of bad faith transfer denial against 1125 Park that Sandra had sought to remedy as co-trustee. 1125 Park initially took the position that Sandra lacked standing as co-trustee to seek redress for the alleged bad faith refusal to transfer the Penthouse C shares to the Trust. 1125 Park previously moved to dismiss on this basis and sought confirmation of the proper standard to be applied in assessing share transfer decisions to a trust benefiting an immediate family member under the proprietary lease for Penthouse C. The proprietary lease provided that, for share transfers to financially responsible immediate family members, the co-op “shall not unreasonably withhold [its] consent.” That prior motion to dismiss was resolved in a decision and order of this court dated April 14, 2016 (the 2016 Decision), which determined that transfers to a trust benefiting an immediate family member could not be treated the same as those directly to immediate family members (Matter of Schulte, NYLJ, April 18, 2016, at 19, col 2 [Sur Ct, NY County]). The business judgment rule applied to such transfers to trusts, rather than the “not unreasonably withheld” standard for transfers to immediate family members (id.). That decision also determined that Sandra as co-trustee did not have a sufficient interest in the apartment or the shares appurtenant thereto to make the share transfer denial claims against 1125 Park, and, due to this lack of standing, the motion was granted, dismissing her claims as co-trustee (id.). Sandra’s instant motion sought renewal under CPLR 2221 of this prior motion to dismiss resolved in the 2016 Decision, asserting an intervening change in the governing law. The Executor did not pursue the estate’s cross-claim and subsequently sought its discontinuance. This prompted Sandra to seek to represent the estate of decedent, to whom as shareholder the duties of 1125 Park ran, and, in 2018, the court granted Sandra Limited Letters of Administration c. t. a. to prosecute the cross-claim originally interposed by the Executor. After completing discovery, 1125 Park moved for summary judgment claiming there were no facts supporting Sandra’s claimed improper favoritism of a board member in denying the share transfer to the Trust. In response, Sandra moved to amend the estate’s cross-claim to add claims that 1125 Park had improper personal animus toward her amounting to bad faith. The court, in a decision and order dated November 23, 2022 (the 2022 Decision), denied the motion to amend as prejudicial to 1125 Park and additionally for the reason that the amendments sought to made to the cross-claim were palpably insufficient (Matter of Schulte, NYLJ, Dec. 5, 2022, at 17, col 1 [Sur Ct, NY County]). The court also granted 1125 Park summary judgment dismissing the estate’s cross-claim, agreeing with 1125 Park that no evidence raised a question of fact on Sandra’s claim of bad faith grounded on improper favoritism in denying the share transfer to the Trust (id). At the March 10, 2023 calendar call, Sandra sought to both reargue and renew these motions to amend and for summary judgment resolved in the 2022 Decision. As noted above, she also moved to renew consideration of 1125 Park’s motion to dismiss Sandra’s claims as co-trustee against 1125 Park, which had resulted in the 2016 Decision.1
