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
PLAINTIFF AGREED TO PROVIDE POURED, NOT PUMPED, CONCRETE AND SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE INSTALLATION OF TACTILE STRIPS FROM THE SUBCONTRACT; DEFENDANT SUBSEQUENTLY REQUESTED THAT PLAINTIFF PROVIDE PUMPED CONCRETE AND INSTALL TACTILE STRIPS; THESE CHANGES WERE MATERIAL BUT NOT “CARDINAL” SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF’S PERFORMANCE WAS EXCUSED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT LEFT HIS EMPLOYER’S FARM BRIEFLY USING HIS EMPLOYER’S ATV AND WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO THE FARM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT CONSUMED ALCOHOL WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS EMPLOYER, CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT, WORKER’S COMPENSATION CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
Garagekeeper’s Lien Ineffective Against Owner of Leased Vehicle/Lessee Did Not Have Apparent Authority to Consent to Vehicle Repair and Storage on Owner’s Behalf
Sheriff’s Deputy’s Driving During an Emergency Operation Did Not Rise to the “Reckless Disregard” Standard for Liability
DNA EVIDENCE WAS STRONG EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS THE ROBBER, DESPITE THE DNA MATCH, THE FULL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, NEW TRIAL ORDERED; PROSECUTOR’S STATEMENT IN SUMMATION THAT THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ROBBER WAS IMPROPER.
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER, A KENTUCKY RESIDENT, IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION: THE COUPLE HAD NOT LIVED TOGETHER IN NEW YORK STATE FOR 23 YEARS (THIRD DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE USED TO CALCULATE DEFENDANT’S COMPENSATION WAS NOT SET IN THE CONTRACT, BUT RATHER WAS TO BE ESTABLISHED AND AGREED TO, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE CONTRACT AS A MERE AGREEMENT TO AGREE; THE AMOUNT COULD BE DETERMINED BY EXTRINSIC INFORMATION.
PLEA COLLOQUY RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT ALLOWED ISSUE TO BE HEARD ON APPEAL, PLEA VACATED (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...