You are here: / / 2008 LETTER INFORMING DEFENDANT SHE WAS IN DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE...
,

2008 LETTER INFORMING DEFENDANT SHE WAS IN DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a 2008 letter from the bank's counsel informing defendant she was in default did not expressly accelerate the debt. Therefore the statute of limitations did not begin to run in 2008 and the current proceeding is timely:

“The six-year statute of limitations in a mortgage foreclosure action begins to run from the due date for each unpaid installment unless the debt has been accelerated; once the debt has been accelerated by a demand or commencement of an action, the entire sum becomes due and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire mortgage”  … . …

The August 2008 letter advised defendant and Luma that they had violated the terms of the note and mortgage by failing to make monthly payments and that counsel had been retained “to exercise all of [the loan servicer's] rights and remedies at law, and in equity, including, but not limited to, the right to sell the above captioned premises at a public sale.” The letter therefore left all legal and equitable avenues open, did not indicate that immediate payment was demanded and, indeed, went on to state that the debt's validity would not be assumed unless there was an absence of timely written objection to some or all of it. There was, moreover, neither an explicit demand for payment in the letter nor the use of the word “accelerate.” Bank of Am., Natl. Assn. v Luma, 2018 NY Slip Op 00214, Third Dept 1-11-18

FORECLOSURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, 2008 LETTER INFORMING DEFENDANT SHE WAS IN DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,  2008 LETTER INFORMING DEFENDANT SHE WAS IN DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, 2008 LETTER INFORMING DEFENDANT SHE WAS IN DEFAULT DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
AN OPINION SURVEY WAS PROPERLY CIRCULATED BY THE VILLAGE (CONCERNING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT), THE SURVEY WAS NOT A PROHIBITED ADVISORY REFERENDUM.
FATHER’S OBJECTIONS (EXCEPTIONS) TO THE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF HIS SON TO ITALY PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED; THE EXCEPTIONS RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS THE SON WAS SUBJECTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE BY A MINOR IN MOTHER’S HOME IN ITALY (THIRD DEPT).
THE CLAUSE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH STATED THE AGREED FIREFIGHTER STAFFING LEVEL WAS 36 DID NOT BARGAIN AWAY THE MUNICIPALITY’S RIGHT TO ELIMINATE POSITIONS, THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY’S REFUSAL TO FILL A FIREFIGHTER VACANCY WAS NOT ARBITRABLE (THIRD DEPT). ​
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.
A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A CLASS A FELONY CANNOT WAIVE INDICTMENT AND PLEAD TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION PURSUANT TO CPL 195.10 (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT’S MATTER WAS FULLY CLOSED AND WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND FOR REOPENED CASES, DESPITE CONTINUING PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT (THIRD DEPT).
BOTH THE HIPAA PRIVACY RULE AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW APPLY TO THE FOIL REQUEST FOR RECORDS DOCUMENTING INJURIES SUFFERED BY ATHLETES USING THE OLYMPIC TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK; THE HIPAA DEIDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE REQUESTED RECORDS (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR, DID YARD WORK FOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER, INCLUDING SPREADING MULCH AND USING HIS OWN LADDER TO TRIM A TREE; PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE LADDER ON THE MULCH; THE LADDER FELL OVER WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (THE MULCH) AND DID NOT SUPERVISE OR DIRECT PLAINTIFF’S TREE-TRIMMING WORK; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN A SURRENDER OF THE LEASED PREMISES BY...