Five Key Takeaways From Our Investigation Into the Queens Surrogate’s Court

Three decades ago, the Queens Surrogate’s Court was a frequent topic of local investigative reporting. It was widely covered as a patronage hub, where loyalty to the Queens Democratic Party paid off in lucrative case appointments.

It’s received far less attention in recent years — but many of the same dynamics persist. Two recent cases allege that surrogate judge Peter J. Kelly, who has run the court for the past 14 years, has slanted case proceedings to suit a Queens Democratic Party patron — including in a battle over a $330 million fortune.

Yesterday, New York Focus published an investigation that detailed the history of the Queens political machine, its grip on the court system, and the 23-year-old taking on Queens royalty. Here are five takeaways:

We’re continuing to report on New York’s court system and political machines. Do you have information we should know? Write to Chris Bragg at cbragg@nysfocus.com. Your identity will not be published without your permission.

When Queens Democrats held their judicial nominating convention in August, the party’s seven selections for vacant state supreme court posts rose for acceptance speeches.

One by one, each of the seven jurists singled out three men to thank by name: Gerard Sweeney, Michael Reich, and Frank Bolz.

In the heavily Democratic borough, the party’s endorsement can effectively guarantee winning an election. And the law firm of Sweeney, Reich & Bolz — which often argues cases before Queens judges — plays a major role in the endorsement process.

Over the past two years, Reich and Bolz constituted two-thirds of a panel that interviewed potential judges seeking party backing, according to Mark Morrill, a former Queens Democratic district leader.

Reich is the party’s longtime executive secretary, Bolz is law chairman, and Sweeney has long been a crucial behind-the-scenes strategist to county leaders.

It’s perhaps the plummest judicial appointment in New York, spawned by a powerful political connection.

In the early 1990s, Sweeney served as campaign treasurer and close confidant to the then-leader of the Queens Democratic Party, US Representative Tom Manton.

In 1992, a Manton-selected Queens surrogate judge chose Sweeney to be “counsel” to the Queens Public Administrator, an office that determines who should inherit when a borough resident dies without a will. In this role, Sweeney regularly appears before the current surrogate judge, Peter Kelly, and serves at Kelly’s pleasure.

Sweeney’s law firm has made at least tens of millions of dollars, funded by the estates he’s been assigned to represent. He made more than $3.2 million in 2023, records obtained by New York Focus show.

Sweeney’s earnings are based not on the number of hours he works but on the size of the fortunes left without a will: The bigger the estate, the bigger the payday. In one case finalized in 2023, a multimillion-dollar estate was required to pay Sweeney’s firm $1,713 per hour.

Besides being a Queens political kingmaker and highly paid counsel to the Queens administrator, Sweeney also represents private parties in litigation — including in Queens Surrogate’s Court.

Those overlapping roles fueled controversy in the fight over the $330 million estate of deceased Queens real estate mogul Mohammad Malik.

Malik died of cancer in 2023. His sole child, a recent college graduate named Brandon Bishunauth, was slated to receive just $25,000 from the mogul’s most recent will, which granted the vast majority to Malik’s younger sister. Malik had not wanted a child, and Brandon had virtually no contact with his father growing up.

After being approached by an attorney, Brandon explored challenging the validity of his father’s wills — the last signed days before death and containing significant changes. If the wills were invalidated, Brandon would become sole heir to the $330 million. But Brandon also faced significant hurdles to proving that case, and formidable opposition in his aunt’s attorneys: Sweeney and Bolz.

Brandon alleges that, during a December 2023 court conference, Kelly improperly pressured him to accept a settlement offer favored by Sweeney. Kelly allegedly argued against Brandon receiving a potential $4 million settlement because that amount was “too much” for a 22-year-old to receive.

Facing alleged time pressure, Brandon verbally accepted an offer of $2 million. But Kelly said he would wait to issue a “decree” until the parties agreed in writing to the settlement and a confidentiality agreement.

A week after the hearing, Brandon decided to back out. No written agreements were ever finalized. Even so, Kelly proceeded with an order declaring Malik’s will legally valid — an act that Brandon’s current attorney says was illegal.

Another question is whether Kelly should have been involved at all. According to state law, a judge must disqualify themself from hearing a case if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Given that Sweeney’s law firm helps decide who lands Queens judgeships, Kelly should have disqualified himself from overseeing Brandon’s case, according to Cynthia Godsoe, a Brooklyn Law School professor who specializes in legal ethics.

“I think the appearance is terrible,” she said. “The standard is ‘might reasonably be questioned.’ Of course it’s going to be questioned, right?”

Brandon’s current attorney, Ravi Batra, has appealed Kelly’s rulings and eventually hopes to present evidence to a jury that Malik’s wills should be invalidated.

Kelly recently faced a second allegation that he improperly advocated for Sweeney’s position during settlement discussions — this time, in a fight over the home of a Queens man who died without a will.

Yu Chan Li, a close friend of the deceased, believed she’d been legally granted 100 percent ownership of the Queens home worth roughly $900,000.

In this case, Sweeney was acting in his capacity as counsel to the Queens Public Administrator, which accused Li of obtaining sole title to her friend’s property through a campaign of undue influence and fraud. The office moved to vacate Li’s ownership.

In an email last July, Sweeney said Kelly had made clear that he would “not permit the Public Administrator to pay more than 30%” of the home’s sale proceeds to Li in a settlement. Thirty percent was also Sweeney’s negotiating position, according to the email.

Li strongly denied the fraud allegations. According to an attorney’s court filing, Kelly had little knowledge of Li’s side of the story as the judge staked out an inflexible position.

At a settlement conference last year, Kelly “repeatedly threatened that if Li didn’t take 30%, she could get zero,” according to a court filing from Li’s attorney.

In August, Li filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Kelly, alleging she was being deprived due process. Li’s federal lawsuit was quickly dismissed by a Brooklyn judge, who found Kelly enjoyed “judicial immunity” from being sued for official actions taken in his courtroom.

Following that ruling, Li agreed in November to settle for the 30 percent that Sweeney and Kelly had sought. Li could have gone to trial — but Kelly would have been the person charged with deciding the outcome.