You are here: / / HERE A MOTION TO RENEW AN APPEAL WAS GRANTED AND THE PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION...
, ,

HERE A MOTION TO RENEW AN APPEAL WAS GRANTED AND THE PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION WAS VACATED BASED ON THE ENACTMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA); THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HAD HELD THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY BECAUSE THE BANK HAD DE-ACCELERATED THE DEBT; BUT FAPA RENDEREDTHE DE-ACCELERATION INVALID; SO THE INITIAL SUPREME COURT DECISION GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS REINSTATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department granted defendants’ motion to renew an appeal and vacated its prior decision because of the subsequent enactment of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). The Third Department had reversed summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the ground the bank had de-accelerated the debt rendering the foreclosure action timely. But the FAPA now precludes such a de-acceleration and applies retroactively. Therefore Supreme Court’s decision granting summary judgment dismissing the foreclosure action was reinstated:

Defendants now move to renew, contending that the enactment of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (hereinafter FAPA) is a change in law that requires reversal of our prior decision. Specifically, defendants claim that the second action is now barred by the statute of limitations because FAPA applies retroactively, and such law prohibits the reset of a statute of limitations by the unilateral act of a party such as by a de-acceleration letter. * * *

… [S]ince the second action was brought more than six years after plaintiff accelerated the debt, it is barred by the statute of limitations applicable to foreclosure actions … . Thus, defendants’ motion to renew is granted and this Court’s previous decision is vacated. On the merits of the underlying appeal, pursuant to FAPA, defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of Supreme Court, albeit on different grounds. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A. v Bresler, 2025 NY Slip Op 03363, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: Although the issue was not discussed in the Third Department’s decision, apparently CPLR 2221 [e] [2] applies to a motion for renewal of an appeal.

 

You might also like
BECAUSE CLAIMANT SUFFERED PHYSICAL TRAUMA, TO RECOVER FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES SHE NEED ONLY DEMONSTRATE A CONNECTION BTWEEN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES AND THE PHYSICAL TRAUMA; CLAIMANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT WORKPLACE INJURY CAUSED THE PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES (THIRD DEPT).
Tax Exemption Properly Eliminated for Airplane Hangar Not Held for Public Use
Father’s Status as an Untreated Sex Offender, Together with Mother’s Willingness to Leave the Children with Father Unsupervised, Was Sufficient to Establish Neglect
IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT STATED THE WIFE’S INCOME WAS WELL BELOW THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL YET SHE WAIVED SPOUSAL SUPPORT; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 5-311 MAY, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN VIOLATED; ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT AS A WHOLE WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO ALLOW THE JUDGE TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE WAIVER (THIRD DEPT).
Prosecutor’s Remarks In Summation Required Reversal
Question of Fact About Whether Golfer, Who Was Injured When the Golf Cart He Was Driving Tipped Over, Was Subject to More than the Normal Hazards Associated with Golfing
THE DELAY IN PRODUCING THE DEFENDANT FOR ARRAIGNMENT AFTER THE PEOPLE BECAME AWARE HE WAS IN CUSTODY WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE (A “CONTRADICTORY HOLDING” BY THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WAS NOTED); DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
EMPLOYER’S ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON ITS APPLICATION FOR A BOARD REVIEW OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S AWARD OF BENEFITS WAS ADEQUATE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION; THE QUESTION CONCERNED WHEN THE EMPLOYER’S OBJECTION TO THE RULING WAS MADE (THIRD 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

“NO TRESPASSING” AND “PRIVATE PROPERTY” SIGNS WERE POSTED... THE JUDGE’S PROVIDING ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE...