You are here: / / STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE...
,

STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT, INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the prior action for foreclosure accelerated the debt and the subsequent stipulation of discontinuance did not de-accelerate the debt. The instant foreclosure action was therefore time-barred:

… [D]efendant established that the six-year statute of limitations began to run on the entire debt on April 21, 2008, the date the plaintiff accelerated the mortgage debt by commencing the prior action … . Since the plaintiff did not commence this action until December 15, 2015, more than six years later, the defendant sustained his initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that this action was untimely … . The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to present admissible evidence establishing that the action was timely or to raise a question of fact as to whether the action was timely … .

The plaintiff failed to meet its burden. Contrary to its contention, the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact as to whether it affirmatively revoked its election to accelerate the mortgage within the six-year limitations period. Its execution of the stipulation of discontinuance did not, by itself, constitute an affirmative act to revoke its election to accelerate, since the stipulation was silent on the issue of the election to accelerate, and did not otherwise indicate that the plaintiff would accept installment payments from the defendant … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Craig, 2019 NY Slip Op 00846 [169 AD3d 627], Second Dept 2-6-19

 

You might also like
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS MAINTENANCE-ARREARS ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BUS STOPPED IN AN UNUSUAL AND VIOLENT WAY IN THIS COMMON CARRIER INJURY CASE (SECOND DEPT).
LANDLORD (SUBLESSOR) DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE TO PREVENT A MENTALLY ILL TENANT FROM SMOKING IN THE APARTMENT WHERE A FIRE STARTED.
CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER WHO ENTERED BUILDING THROUGH A BROKEN DOOR.
Mother’s Request to Relocate Properly Granted
THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT BY THE PLAINTIFF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MISTAKENLY ORDERED THE SALE OF MULTIPLE LOTS, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A SINGLE BUILDING SPANNED THE THREE LOTS, THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY DEEMED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AS A SINGLE LOT, COURT HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE, SUA SPONTE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE (SECOND 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

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SWEEPING THE FLOOR WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY BY A PIECE OF A... MANAGER OF COOPERATIVE DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY IN EXTERIOR PUBLIC...