You are here: / / THE LETTER SENT TO THE BORROWER BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION...
, ,

THE LETTER SENT TO THE BORROWER BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT EXPLICITLY INDICATE THE DEBT WAS BEING IMMEDIATELY ACCELERATED; THEREFORE THE DEBT HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letter sent by the bank to the borrower in this foreclosure action did not accelerate the debt and therefore did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations:

… [A] ” ‘letter discussing acceleration as a possible future event, . . . does not constitute an exercise of the mortgage’s optional acceleration clause'” …  “The determinative question is not what the noteholder intended or the borrower perceived, but whether the contractual election was effectively invoked” … . Here, a letter sent to the defendants … , did not effectively accelerate the mortgage debt, as this letter merely discussed acceleration as a possible future event … . HSBC Bank USA v Pantel, 2022 NY Slip Op 04954, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: A letter from the bank to the borrower which discussed the acceleration of the mortgage debt but did not indicate the debt was in fact accelerated did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations on the foreclosure action. The foreclosure action was not, therefore, time-barred.

 

You might also like
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUESTING AN AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY; THE PETITION WAS GRANTED; BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED ON WHETHER MODIFICATION WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN; MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER GRANTING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Application for Undue Hardship Exception to Medicaid Ineligibility Should Have Been Granted
SUPREME COURT, IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION, HAD USED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CURRENT LAW (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED SUCH THAT THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WOULD BE DEEMED VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED MALPRACTICE BY A CORPORATION OWNED BY A HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE AND WHOSE OFFICE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL (SECOND DEPT).
Defendants Who Struck Plaintiff’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Pulled Out of a Parking Lot Entitled to Summary Judgment
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS THE PRODUCT OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFUSION, SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO “REINSTATE” A PRIOR VERDICT THAT HAD NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE JUDGE.
THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE THE NECESSARY BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVITS; HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS... DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THE ADDRESS IN THE AFFIDAVIT...