You are here: / / THE DEFAULT LETTER, WHICH INDICATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED...
,

THE DEFAULT LETTER, WHICH INDICATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE IF THE DEFAULT WERE NOT CURED, DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the mortgage debt was not accelerated by a letter indicating the debt would be accelerated on a specific future date if the arears were not paid:

… [T]he issue is whether the May 2008 default letter was an acceleration event that triggered the statute of limitations. We hold that is was not. Thus, the second action, commenced in October 2014, was timely. To that end, the May 2008 letter provided that, if the default was not cured “on or before June 10, 2008, the mortgage payments will be accelerated with the full amount remaining accelerated and becoming due and payable in full, and foreclosure proceedings will be initiated at that time.” Since this letter was “‘merely an expression of future intent that fell short of an actual acceleration,’ which could ‘be changed in the interim'” … , it did not accelerate the debt … . “[T]he letter did not seek immediate payment of the entire, outstanding loan, but referred to acceleration only as a future event, indicating the debt was not accelerated at the time the letter was written” … . Further, the May 2008 letter specifically discussed other non-acceleration options for defendant, including a repayment plan or loan modification, which plaintiff, as the holder of the note, should be able to do “without running the risk of being deemed to have taken the drastic step of accelerating the loan” … . Thus, the statute of limitations was not triggered until the debt was accelerated by the commencement of the first action in February 2009 … , rendering the commencement of the second action, in October 2014, timely as it was within the six-year statute of limitations …  . GMAT Legal Tit. Trust 2014-1, Us Bank Natl. Assn. v Wood, 2021 NY Slip Op 01455, Third Dept 3-11-21

 

You might also like
CONFINEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNIT (RMHU) FOR 17 HOURS A DAY, WITH AT LEAST SEVEN HOURS OF OUT-OF-CELL TIME PER DAY, FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT) (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER’S ABSCONDING FROM SUPERVISION IS A NON-TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF PAROLE AUTHORIZING REINCARCERATION FOR 30 MONTHS (THIRD DEPT).
Residential Health Care Facility’s Medicaid Reimbursement Disallowed with Respect to Certain Operating Costs
MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS CONCERNING WHETHER NEW YORK IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE OR CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN A MISSISSIPPI COURT (THIRD DEPT).
Conviction Based Upon a Plea Allocution In Which Defendant Was Not Informed of the Period of Post-Release Supervision Can Not Be Used as a Predicate Violent Felony for Purposes of Sentencing as a Persistent Violent Felony Offender
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN, THE CHARACTER OF THE WORK AND EXAGGERATION PRECLUDED SUMMARY DISCHARGE OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE TIME PERIOD FOR LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF DEFENDANTS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A PLAINTIFF RETAINS COUNSEL, HERE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED WHEN COUNSEL WAS RETAINED THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE COMPLAINT NAMED DEFENDANTS AS ‘JOHN DOES’ WHO WERE NOT IDENTIFIED UNTIL AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THE ACTION WAS DEEMED TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Tavern Served Visibly Intoxicated Defendant

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

TWO ZONING VIOLATION SUMMONSES ADDRESSING THE SAME USE OF THE PROPERTY WERE... WHERE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN AN ORDER OR A JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION...