You are here: / / THE 2011 ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WAS REVOKED BY THE 2017 REVOCATION OF...
,

THE 2011 ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WAS REVOKED BY THE 2017 REVOCATION OF THE ACCELERATION RENDERING THE 2018 FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the 2018 foreclosure action was timely because the 2011 acceleration of the debt was revoked in 2017:

… [A]lthough the defendants demonstrated … the six-year statute of limitations began to run in July 2011, when the plaintiff accelerated the mortgage debt through its commencement of the 2011 action … , the plaintiff established that the April 2017 de-acceleration notice sent to the defendants revoked the acceleration of the mortgage debt. Since the March 2018 action was commenced within six years of the revocation of the mortage acceleration, the March 2018 action was not time barred … . Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … should have been denied. U.S. Bank N.A. v Papanikolaw, 2021 NY Slip Op 04777, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

You might also like
Question of Fact Whether City Created Hazardous Condition
UNDER THE NEW DISCOVERY ARTICLE, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 245, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO “AUTOMATIC” DISCLOSURE OF THE TESTIMONY (IN A PRIOR CASE) OF AN ARRESTING OFFICER WHICH HAD BEEN DEEMED INCREDIBLE; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER THE EVIDENCE RENDERED THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO PAY SUPPORT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF A SUPPORT ORDER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED.
ALTHOUGH AN ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN ISSUED, NO JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WAS ENTERED; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS STILL VIABLE AND PLAINTIFFS COULD MOVE TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PLEA ALLOCUTION RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF DURESS AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE MADE NO INQUIRY INTO THE VALIDITY OF PLEA; CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
Although the President of a Corporation Was Also a Member of Defendant Limited Liability Company, the Corporation and Limited Liability Were Not Shown to Be “United in Interest” Such that the “Relation-Back” Doctrine Would Apply to Allow Adding the Corporation as a Defendant After the Statute of Limitations Had Run
Unsigned Depositions Deemed Admissible
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A BANK ROBBERY ONE MONTH AFTER THE CHARGED MURDER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX TO FILL IN A GAP IN THE EVIDENCE OR EXPLAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH A WITNESS OR TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT; A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL ANOTHER WITNESS UNDER THE “OPENING THE DOOR” THEORY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MISLEADING TESTIMONY WHICH NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED (SECOND 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

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ANNULLED THE ELECTION BOARD’S DESIGNATION OF AN... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION ON...