On Sunday, February 22, 2026, Hoodline reported that Queens Surrogate Judge Peter J. Kelly is facing accusations of running a secret docket in a high-stakes dispute over a $330 million estate. The allegations, detailed in newly filed appellate papers, claim that Judge Kelly’s actions effectively cut off routine appellate review through the use of gag orders and a non-public docket.

The case revolves around the estate of Mohammad Malik, who passed away in February 2023. Court documents value the estate at approximately $330 million. Malik’s most recent will reportedly left $25,000 to his 23-year-old son, Brandon Bishunauth, while the majority of the fortune was directed to Malik’s sister, Yasmin Malik, according to New York Focus. Challengers argue that if the final will is invalidated under New York law, the estate could instead pass to the son, which is fueling the intense dispute.

Bishunauth’s appellate filings accuse Judge Kelly of “repeated, purposeful, and knowing” violations. The filings claim that the court relied on a separate docket not accessible through the New York State Courts Electronic Filing system (NYSCEF) and refused to accept key notices of motion, including a cross-motion allegedly blocked from being uploaded on January 24, 2024. OMMCOM News reports that the case has now reached the Appellate Division, Second Department, which will determine the validity of a key decree and the case’s sealing order.

Transcripts and filings indicate that Judge Kelly signed an order in December 2023 to seal the case and declared Malik’s 2023 will “uncontested.” Challengers contend that this occurred despite the absence of finalized core confidentiality terms and a written settlement.

Judge Kelly responded with a multi-page written statement, available on DocumentCloud, asserting that he relied on a verbal agreement among the parties and aimed to resolve the matter before the year’s end. New York Focus has traced the disputed timeline, highlighting the significant disagreement between the parties regarding the finalization of any agreements.

Beyond the procedural battle, the case also involves questions of political influence within Queens. Investigative reporting and public records reveal that the law firm Sweeney, Reich & Bolz has served as counsel to the Queens Public Administrator for decades and has exerted considerable influence in local judicial endorsements. The New York Daily News has reported on the firm’s influence and the millions it has earned from surrogate-court appointments. Critics argue that this history creates a conflict of interest when lawyers from the same firm appear before the Surrogate’s Court bench.

The Appellate Division is tasked with deciding whether the Surrogate’s Court improperly handled filings and docketing, thereby blocking Bishunauth’s right to appeal, and whether the sealing order and decree should be overturned. OMMCOM News notes that distributions from the estate may have already begun under the executor. If the appellate judges find serious procedural or due-process errors, some of the funds could potentially be recovered.

The filings raise broader questions about case docketing procedures, access to court records, and judicial recusal requirements. These issues have significant implications for how large estates are resolved in Queens. New York’s judicial-ethics rules mandate that judges disqualify themselves whenever their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” The state’s published ethics opinions and rules will provide the framework for the appellate panel’s review of the claims, with the outcome clarifying how recusal and transparency guidance apply when substantial sums of money are at stake.

 

 

Source: Hoodline