You are here: / / PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) THE BANK IS ESTOPPED...
,

PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) THE BANK IS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING (1) THE VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE STOPPED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND (2) THE DEBT WAS NOT ACCELERATED BECAUSE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was estopped pursuant to the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) from claiming the voluntary discontinuance of the action stopped the running of the statute of limitations. The bank was also estopped by the FAPA from claiming the mortgage debt was not validly accelerated because the bank did not have standing when the foreclosure action was commenced:

… [T]he plaintiff … contends that it raised a triable issue of fact because the voluntary discontinuance of the 2008 action revoked its acceleration of the mortgage debt in that action and, thus, the instant action is timely. The plaintiff also contends that the instant action is timely because it did not have standing to commence the 2008 action, and, therefore, the mortgage debt was not validly accelerated by the commencement of that action. … [U]nder the recently enacted Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (… hereinafter FAPA), the voluntary discontinuance of the 2008 action did not “‘in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute'” … . Also, under FAPA, the plaintiff is estopped from asserting that the debt was not validly accelerated by the commencement of the 2008 action based on its lack of standing, and that, therefore, the instant action is timely. CPLR 213(4), as amended by FAPA, added paragraph (a), which provides that “[i]n any action on an instrument described under this subdivision, if the statute of limitations is raised as a defense, and if that defense is based on a claim that the instrument at issue was accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, a plaintiff shall be estopped from asserting that the instrument was not validly accelerated, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated.” Here, since the 2008 action was voluntarily discontinued, and therefore was not “dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the instrument was not validly accelerated,” the plaintiff is estopped under FAPA from asserting that the debt was not validly accelerated by the commencement of the 2008 action based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Wong, 2023 NY Slip Op 03908, Second Dept 7-26-23

Practice Point: The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act precluded the bank from claiming the voluntary discontinuance stopped the running of the statute of limitations and the bank’s lack of standing when the foreclosure action was brought invalidated the acceleration of the debt.

 

You might also like
THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (NYCHHC); CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, IN ORDER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER BRAKE-FAILURE WAS THE CAUSE, THE DEFENDANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE WAS UNANTICIPATED AND REASONABLE CARE WAS TAKEN TO KEEP THE BRAKES IN GOOD WORKING ORDER; NOT THE CASE HERE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER USED MARIJUANA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED, RECORD EXPUNGED.
ALTHOUGH THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT MAY HAVE LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES WERE NOT PRODUCED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT). ​
Hospital Not Vicariously Liable for Acts of Non-Employee Midwife/Hospital May Be Liable for Staff’s Failure to Summon Obstetrician When Problems with the Birth Developed/Midwife’s Assistant, Who Worked Under the Supervision of the Midwife and Did Not Exercise Independent Judgment, Not Liable
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LANDOWNERS NEGATED BOTH POTENTIAL THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
NYC RENT STABILIZATION RULES DO NOT APPLY TO A BUILDING CONVERTED FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL USE AFTER 1974.

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

THE NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND HIRING CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST... IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE JURY PROPERLY FOUND THE LANDLORD NEGLIGENTLY...