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
Approval of an MRI Within Seven Years of Closure of Claimant’s Case Effectively Reopened the Case—Transfer to the Special Fund for Closed Cases Was Error
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO PLEAD TO A LESSER OFFENSE WITHOUT THE PROSECUTOR’S PERMISSION, HOWEVER NEITHER A WRIT OF PROHIBITION NOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
No Reference to When Child-Pornography Images Downloaded/Therefore Consecutive Sentences Could Not Be Imposed
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, HE DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL; COUNSEL DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENDANT AND DID NOT PRESENT A DEFENSE; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
EVEN WHERE PLAINTIFF CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NO-FAULT LAW, PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER ECONOMIC LOSS ABOVE THE STATUTORY BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS ($50,000).
NEW TRIAL ORDERED BECAUSE THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE VERDICT SHEET COULD NOT BE REMEDIED AFTER THE JURY WAS DISCHARGED, THE JURY HAD AWARDED PLAINTIFF-STUDENT $1 MILLION IN A SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT STEMMING FROM BULLYING BY OTHER STUDENTS (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT).
COUNTY COURT DID NOT ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER RE THE DEFENDANT’S RISK ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA); THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND WAS DISMISSED (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...