Lee v. Chun Ka Luk
This text of Lee v. Chun Ka Luk (Lee v. Chun Ka Luk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
Lee v Chun Ka Luk
2026 NY Slip Op 02337
April 16, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Dennis Lee, Also Known as Lee Man For Dennis, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
Chun Ka Luk, as Administrator of the Estate of Nancy Luk, Deceased, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: April 16, 2026
Index No. 603111/05|Appeal No. 6407-6408|Case No. 2025-05180, 2025-05625|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Higgitt, Rosado, O'neill Levy, Chan, JJ.
Heller Horowitz & Feit, P.C., New York (Stuart A. Blander of counsel), for appellant.
Aimee Levine Law LLC, New York (Aimee P. Levine of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered July 15, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of plaintiff Dennis Lee for summary judgment as to liability on the first through fifth causes of action in the amended complaint, for summary judgment as to the sixth cause of action for injunctive relief to set aside unlawful conveyances, declared that Nancy Luk was not the sole shareholder, officer and director of Lee-Tai Enterprises (USA) Ltd., 238-240 7th Avenue Corp., and Broadway Chinatown Realty Inc. (collectively, the Companies), and denied the cross-motion of defendant Chun Ka Luk, as Administrator of the Estate of Nancy Luk for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint for a lack of standing and as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered September 9, 2025, which issued a permanent injunction against defendant prohibiting him from, among other things, operating, managing, exercising control over or otherwise interfering with the Companies and the properties owned by the Companies, to compel defendant to transfer the Companies' books and records to plaintiff, to transfer the Companies' properties to plaintiff, directing anyone acting on defendants' behalf to take the steps necessary to transfer the properties owned by the Companies to plaintiff, and to give plaintiff access to the properties and corporate financial accounts, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
This case has its origins in a dispute between siblings Dennis Lee and Nancy Luk over the operation, management, and control of Lee-Tai Enterprises (USA) Ltd. and 238-240 7th Avenue Corp., both formed in 1973 by their parents, as well as Broadway Chinatown Realty, Inc., which was acquired by 238-240 in 1986. Plaintiff Dennis Lee contends that during her lifetime Nancy diverted monies and assets from the Companies for her own personal use and benefit. Defendant contends that Nancy was simply managing the Companies and that she was the only one in the family who did so from 1980 until her death in 2011.
Plaintiff commenced this action against Nancy in 2005, asserting claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) breach of the duty of loyalty, (3) corporate waste, seeking to set aside any unlawful conveyances, (4) fraud, (5) conversion, (6) an injunction prohibiting defendant from interfering with the Companies, using Company monies, or disposing of any Company assets, and to set aside any unlawful conveyances, and (7) an accounting and constructive trust. The parties engaged in extensive motion practice and in 2024, 19 years after this action was commenced, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his amended complaint and defendant cross-moved for summary dismissal of the amended complaint.
[*2]Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross-motion for summary dismissal. Plaintiff established his standing to bring claims under Business Corporation Law § 720 as an officer and director of the family companies, Lee-Tai Enterprises (USA) Ltd. and 238-240 7th Avenue Corp., against his now-deceased sister, Nancy. Defendant failed to present any evidence to contradict the 1996 corporate resolutions signed by Nancy reflecting that plaintiff, Nancy, and their father, Chung Li, were appointed as corporate officers and directors of Lee Tai and 238-240 until the next meeting, which the parties agree was never held.
As plaintiff observes, there would have been no reason for Nancy to seek plaintiff and their father's approval of the companies' tax returns or the 1996 IRS settlement had Nancy been the companies' sole shareholder and director, nor would it make sense for her to sign the returns as "vice president" if she were the sole owner. Defendant also failed to present evidence supporting his contention that plaintiff's officer and director positions were abandoned as a factual matter or could be deemed abandoned under the corporate bylaws (see Business Corporation Law §§ 703[b] and 715[d]). Based on this unrebutted evidence, we need not reach the question of whether the court properly looked to the "realities" of the family-run businesses involved to reject defendant's objection to plaintiff's standing based on certain irregularities in the 1973 Business Corporation Law § 404(b) statements (see Leslie, Semple & Garrison v Gavit & Co., 81 AD2d 950, 951 [3d Dept 1981]).
We reject defendant's argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the amended complaint should have been dismissed in its entirety under CPLR 1001 based on the failure to join Nancy's personal entity, Seventh Avenue Development LLC (SAD), as a party to the action. SAD was originally named as a defendant and was dismissed from the action in the February 9, 2007 order because the entity was wholly owned by Nancy and not one of the family businesses of which plaintiff was an officer or director. Thereafter, neither Nancy nor defendant ever sought intervention on SAD's behalf.
[*3]There is also no factual dispute that Nancy, and upon her death, defendant, used and operated SAD as their own personal entity to which they transferred the three apartment buildings owned by 238-240 for no consideration in 2002. After which they demolished those buildings to create the condominium building in which SAD remains the owner of the three units that are subject to the injunctive relief granted by the court in its September 9, 2025 order. Accordingly, because SAD's interests are entirely aligned with defendant's, dismissal on this basis is not warranted (see e.g. Matter of Cartwright v Kennedy, 230 AD3d 969, 970 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 943 [2024], cert denied 145 S Ct 1174 [2025]; see also Matter of Long Is. Contractors' Assn. v Town of Riverhead, 17 AD3d 590, 594 [2d Dept 2005]).
The court also properly denied dismissal of the amended complaint based on the statute of limitations as barred by the law of the case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI