You are here: / / THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) WAS PROPERLY APPLIED RETROACTIVELY...
, , ,

THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) WAS PROPERLY APPLIED RETROACTIVELY IN THIS CASE; RETROACTIVE APPLICATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OR CONTRACT CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined the Foreclosure Prevention Abuse Act applied retroactively to the case before it. Retroactive application does not violate the Due Process or Contract Clauses of the United States Constitution:

We therefore hold that the provisions apply retroactively. Accordingly, because “a final judgment of foreclosure and sale has not been enforced” in this action … , FAPA §§ 4, 7, and 8 govern here by their terms. * * *

To comport with substantive due process, a statute’s retroactive application must be supported by “a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means” … . That is, “the retroactive application of the legislation” must “itself [be] justified by a rational legislative purpose” … .

… FAPA’s legislative history identifies certain “abus[ive]” litigation practices engaged in by mortgage lenders and noteholders as the animating force behind FAPA’s enactment: the sponsors’ memoranda state “legislat[ive] find[ings]” to this effect … . In light of the legislature’s determination that these “abuses” should be curtailed, it is rational for FAPA to apply retroactively to shield as many borrowers as possible from those practices. Moreover, insofar as FAPA’s relevant provisions clarify or change the manner in which the six-year statute of limitations applies, FAPA’s retroactive application also rationally advances “the strong public policy favoring finality, predictability, fairness and repose” in human affairs … . Van Dyke v U.S. Bank, Natl. Assn., 2025 NY Slip Op 06537, CtApp 11-25-25

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH HEARSAY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION, THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STRIKING OF THE TESTIMONY PRESERVED THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL.
ONCE AN ACTION TO RECOVER THE PRINCIPAL OF A BOND IS TIME-BARRED, THERE IS NO LEGALLY COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR POST-MATURITY INTEREST (CT APP).
STATE’S RULING SCHOOL DISTRICT VIOLATED INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ACT NOT FINAL, ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CHALLENGING RULING PROPERLY DISMISSED.
TOWING OF DEFENDANT’S CAR (AND INVENTORY SEARCH) AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST FOR SHOPLIFTING WAS CONSISTENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT’S WRITTEN POLICY.
Presumption of Validity of Town’s Property Tax Assessment Not Rebutted by Objective Data
Defense Attorney’s Conflict of Interest Amounted to Ineffective Assistance
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO ALLOW ADDING A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (CT APP).
Less Stringent “Area Variance” Criteria, Rather than the More Stringent “Use Variance” Criteria, Properly Applied to a Restaurant’s Request for a Variance Re: Off-Street Parking Requirements

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

IN ANSWERING TWO CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS... PLAINTIFF WIRED $300,000 TO AN ACCOUNT IN DEFENDANT BANK WHICH HAD BEEN SET...