You are here: / / THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMSSED AS TIME-BARRED; RPAPL 1304...
, , ,

THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMSSED AS TIME-BARRED; RPAPL 1304 IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, NOT A STATUTORY PROHIBITION WHICH WOULD TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined the defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure action as time-barred, cancel the notice of pendency and cancel and discharge the mortgage (RPAPL article 15) was properly granted. The decision is too complex and factually specific to fairly summarize here (but well worth reading). One of the issues addressed was the difference between a statutory prohibition, which would toll the statute of limitations, and a condition precedent, which would not:

CPLR 204(a) provides that “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by a statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not part of the time within which the action must be commenced” … . RPAPL 1304, which the plaintiff argues is a “statutory prohibition,” requires that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . , including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” RPAPL 1304 describes the required content and manner of service of the notice. “Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action” … .

“A statutory prohibition and a condition precedent are separate concepts” … . The salient feature of a “statutory prohibition” is the plaintiff’s lack of control. Since a plaintiff has complete control over the acts necessary to effectuate compliance with a condition precedent, a condition precedent is not a statutory prohibition … . Thus, because the plaintiff had control over when to serve the RPAPL 1304 notice, and could have done so at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, RPAPL 1304 is not a statutory prohibition within the meaning of CPLR 204(a) … . Everhome Mtge. Co. v Aber, 2021 NY Slip Op 03574, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

You might also like
Neglect Finding Cannot Be Based Upon Judicial Notice of a Drug Conviction
GENERALLY, TO VACATE A JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION, A PLENARY ACTION, NOT A MOTION TO VACATE, MUST BE BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT).
DESCRIPTION OF OFFICE SOUGHT WAS SUFFICIENT, DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BURGLARY COUNT WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT ALLEGED DEFENDANT WAS ARMED WITH A “KNIFE” WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY A “DEADLY WEAPON;” THE ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE COUNT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED; THE SANDOVAL RULING WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFECT IN THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, I.E., AN UNSEALED ENVELOPE INSIDE A SEALED ENVELOPE, WAS CURABLE PURSUANT TO THE ELECTION LAW; THEREFORE THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INVALID; THE VOTERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Question of Fact About Whether Order Given by Private Attending Physician and Carried Out by Hospital Employee Was Contraindicated—Therefore Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss Properly Denied
DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE DID NOT HAVE HIS EMPLOYER’S PERMISSION TO DRIVE THE TRUCK INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER’S INSURER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED COVERAGE (THIRD DEPT).
NO APPEAL LIES FROM DICTA (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

LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION MAY BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (SECOND... PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE LANDLORD ENGAGED IN A FRAUDULENT SCHEME...