Wong v Wong

Holding The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly allowed evidence and argument regarding a prior owner’s status, which contradicted the law of the case. The court found that the late curative instructions were ineffective and that the improper evidence likely played a substantial role in the jury’s decision.

The court’s words

the 2004 agreement executed by plaintiff, his brother Kenneth Wong, and an officer of the nonparty cooperative, together with the 2004 stock certificate signed by two officers of the cooperative, unequivocally granted plaintiff's brother certain rights to the shares to the apartment under their plain terms

2026 NY Slip Op 05753, at the official text

whether the 2012 transfer from plaintiff's brother back to plaintiff constituted an actual or constructive fraudulent conveyance

2026 NY Slip Op 05753, at the official text

any testimony concerning any alleged oral agreement between Arthur Wong and Kenneth Wong is irrelevant to whether or not Kenneth became an owner of the apartment in January 2004

2026 NY Slip Op 05753, at the official text

given at the first opportunity after the improper testimony had been heard

2026 NY Slip Op 05753, at the official text

The testimony and argument related to the issue of Kenneth Wong's ownership of the cooperative shares may have played a substantial role in the jury's decision to find in favor of plaintiff

2026 NY Slip Op 05753, at the official text