After their father died in Saudi Arabia in 2009, a New York man alleged his mother and sister broke promises involving homes in Pennsylvania and Long Island; a November 5 court ruling has dismissed his lawsuit

A family dispute over inherited assets, property promises and two homes in the United States has ended with a New York court dismissing a man’s lawsuit against his mother and sister. According to a judgment published on the legal database Justia on November 5, 2026, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, in Ahmed v Choudhry (2026 NY Slip Op 06518), upheld the dismissal of Saad Ahmed’s complaint. Ahmed had alleged that his mother and sister failed to honour promises involving a property in Pennsylvania and another on Long Island after his father, Mahmood Choudhry, died in Saudi Arabia in December 2009. The appellate court unanimously upheld the earlier decision, ruling that several claims were filed beyond the applicable legal time limits.The case, Ahmed v Choudhry, centred on allegations that Ahmed’s mother, Shahla Choudhry, and sister, Nazia Ahmed, had repeatedly assured him that ownership of the Pennsylvania property would eventually be transferred to him. He claimed that he relied on these assurances for years but never received the promised title. He also alleged that his family misrepresented their financial circumstances, leading him to purchase a Long Island property because his mother supposedly had no money and needed a place to live.The appellate court’s ruling did not establish whether the alleged family promises were made or whether the disputed representations were true. Instead, it upheld the dismissal primarily because Ahmed had failed to bring several claims within the prescribed limitation periods and had not demonstrated sufficient legal grounds to revive them.

Dispute over two properties and father’s estate

According to the court judgment, the dispute also involved the distribution of Mahmood Choudhry’s assets following his death. Ahmed alleged that his father’s estate had been distributed in 2009 or 2010, but claimed that certain assets had been concealed or misappropriated by his family members.One of the central disagreements concerned the Pennsylvania property. Ahmed claimed that his mother and sister repeatedly assured him that its title would be transferred to him. However, despite the alleged promise, the transfer had not taken place by December 2016. He argued that he continued relying on their assurances and expected the agreement to be honoured.The second dispute concerned a property on Long Island. Ahmed alleged that his family persuaded him to purchase it in 2016 by falsely claiming that they had no money and that his mother needed accommodation. He claimed that the arrangement involved promises of rental payments, but Shahla allegedly stopped making the payments in November 2020.Ahmed further alleged that he discovered concealed family assets in January 2019. He also stated that his mother and sister had repudiated their alleged agreement in 2021, leaving him without the property arrangements he claimed had been promised.

Court says man waited too long to pursue claims

The legal battle eventually reached the New York Supreme Court, where the defendants sought dismissal of the complaint. On May 21, 2025, the court granted their request and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety. Ahmed challenged that decision before the Appellate Division, First Department.In its November 5 ruling, the appellate court unanimously affirmed the earlier dismissal. The judges noted that several claims, including those involving breach of contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, were subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Ahmed did not dispute that the six-year period applied but argued that equitable estoppel and fraudulent concealment should prevent his family from relying on those deadlines.However, the court found that he had failed to demonstrate the necessary diligence in pursuing his claims. It pointed to his own account of events, including the failure to transfer the Pennsylvania property in 2016, his discovery of allegedly concealed assets in January 2019 and the alleged repudiation of the agreement in 2021.The judgment also referred to text messages exchanged in October 2022, which showed that Ahmed was aware of potential legal claims and was consulting a lawyer. Despite this, he waited another year and four months before filing the lawsuit in February 2024.The judges said his continued reliance on the alleged promises for more than eight years was not reasonable, particularly given the repeated failure to transfer the Pennsylvania property’s title. They also rejected his argument that the defendants’ alleged concealment could revive claims that had already become time-barred.

Fraud and misappropriation claims also rejected

The court separately examined Ahmed’s allegations of fraud, conversion, misappropriation of funds and civil embezzlement. It noted that he had not directly addressed the dismissal of several of these claims in his original opposition to the defendants’ motion.Even when considered separately, the claims faced legal obstacles. The court explained that conversion claims were subject to a three-year limitation period and that the alleged misappropriation of his father’s estate assets dated back to their distribution in 2009 or 2010.It also clarified that civil embezzlement was not recognised as an independent legal cause of action under New York law. The fraud claims relating to the Long Island property were also dismissed as untimely. Ahmed had alleged that he discovered the supposedly false representations in January 2019 but did not commence proceedings until February 2024.His requests for attorneys’ fees and punitive damages were rejected as well. The court said attorneys’ fees could not be pursued as a separate cause of action in this case, while the allegations did not meet the requirements for punitive damages.Ahmed also sought permission to amend his complaint, but the appellate judges concluded that doing so would be futile because the proposed changes could not correct the underlying legal defects.The November 5 decision leaves the May 2025 dismissal intact, ending this appeal over the disputed Pennsylvania and Long Island properties. The ruling underscores how limitation periods and delays in pursuing legal remedies can affect even complicated family disputes involving inheritance, property ownership and alleged financial promises.