Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joseph Williams Jr., and Angela Williams as Administrators of the Estate of Tanya Eyvette Jowers Petitioners-Respondents, v. Joseph Williams Sr., Respondent-Appellant.
Per Curiam.
Appeal from order (Jack Stoller, J.), entered on or about November 6, 2024, deemed an appeal from the ensuing final judgment (same court and Judge), entered on or about November 12, 2024, and so considered (see CPLR 5520 [c]), final judgment affirmed, without costs.
On this appeal, respondent-appellant Joseph Williams, Sr., does not challenge the trial court's determination that he did not qualify as a nontraditional family member entitled to succession rights (see Braschi v Stahl Assoc. Co., 74 NY2d 201 [1989]). Instead, he claims that the HDFC proprietary lease entitles him, as the "spouse" of the deceased tenant, to have the shares appurtenant to the apartment "transferred to [him] without question." This contention was not raised in respondent's answer, amended answer, or at trial, and thus, is not preserved for appellate review (see Estreich v Lifecare, 178 AD3d 543, 544-545 [2019]; Ulukaya v Pan Am Equities, 67 Misc 3d 128[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50396[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2020]). Even if we were to consider this unpreserved contention, we would find it unavailing. Respondent was not married to the deceased tenant-of-record, and the lease provisions relied upon merely govern the standard for consent by the Directors or Shareholders of the HDFC cooperative to assignments of the lease by the shareholder/tenant, executor or administrator. Contrary to respondent's contention, the lease does not provide that respondent was entitled to assign the lease to himself or that the lease would automatically be transferred to him upon the death of the tenant-of-record.
Nor did respondent establish the requisite extraordinary circumstances necessary to support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of civil litigation (see Matter of Robinson, 44 AD3d 961 [2007]; Matter of Cichosz v Cichosz, 12 AD3d 598, 599 [2004]).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 17, 2025
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 570178 /25
Decided: October 17, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)