You are here: / Foreclosure
, ,

A STIPULATION TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Michael, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the foreclosure action would have been untimely pursuant to the Foreclosure Abuse Protection Act (FAPA) because the plaintiff’s voluntary discontinuance no longer can stop the running of the statute of limitations, here the parties had entered a stipulation tolling the statute of limitations. Supreme Court erred by finding the stipulation unenforceable:

Plaintiff’s prior mortgage foreclosure action against defendant was commenced on July 25, 2008, which indisputably accelerated the entire loan. On May 4, 2011, the parties agreed to discontinue the foreclosure action without prejudice via written stipulation. They also agreed that “the statute of limitations for any claims of plaintiff or defendant against the other is hereby tolled from July 22, 2008 . . . until June 1, 2013.” The stipulation was executed by the parties’ respective counsel and filed with the court. Plaintiff subsequently commenced this foreclosure action on February 16, 2018 and moved for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiff’s action was time-barred under FAPA. * * *

Simply put, despite FAPA’s retroactive application, the parties’ 2011 stipulation in which they expressly agreed to toll the limitations period to June 1, 2013 effectively tolled the limitations period to that date. Plaintiff’s commencement of this action on February 16, 2018, less than six years later, was thus timely. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Nicholas, 2026 NY Slip Op 01461, First Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: A valid stipulation tolling the statute of limitations will be enforced even where, pursuant to FAPA, the revived foreclosure action would otherwise have been untimely.

 

,

UNDER THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA), A DEFENDANT CAN RENEW A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AFTER A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND AFTER THE TIME FOR APPEAL HAS EXPIRED AS LONG AS THE SALE HAS NOT YET BEEN CONDUCTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for renewal of its summary judgment motion in this foreclosure proceeding should have been granted. The motion was based upon the retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). Renewal should be granted after a judgment of foreclosure and after the time for appeal has expired if the sale has not yet been conducted:

Generally, “a motion for leave to renew based upon an alleged change in the law must be made prior to the entry of a final judgment, or before the time to appeal has fully expired” … . However, in Article 13 LLC v Ponce De Leon Fed Bank, the Court of Appeals clarified the application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), finding that it applies retroactively and to all foreclosure actions in which “a final foreclosure sale had not been enforced prior to its effective date, including actions pending at the time of its effective date” … .

A judgment of foreclosure and sale is deemed enforced when the sale is concluded … . Therefore, the only way to effectuate the retroactive application of FAPA after a judgment has been entered and the time to appeal has expired, is by filing a motion to renew before the sale is conducted … . Based on a change in the law with the enactment of the FAPA, [defendant’s] motion for leave to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221(e)(2), was timely … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Jin Hua Lin, 2026 NY Slip Op 01116, First Dept 2-26-26

Practice Point: The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) allows a defendant to renew a motion for summary judgment after a judgment of foreclosure and after the time for appeal has expired if the foreclosure sale has not yet been conducted.

 

,

THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2008; THE DEFENDANTS SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED A LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT IN 2008 WHICH DEACCELERATED THE DEBT AND RESET THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED AGAIN IN 2009; IN 2018 THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED AGAIN BY THE FILING OF THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTS RUNNING FROM EACH MISSED PAYMENT, THE 2018 FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY BROUGHT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the foreclosure action was timely brought. The mortgage was initially accelerated in 2008 when the first foreclosure action was brought. But later in 2008 the defendants entered a loan modification agreement. That agreement validly revoked the acceleration of the debt and reset the statute of limitations. Defendants again defaulted on the mortgage payments in 2009. They argued that the statute of limitations started running upon their 2009 default, rendering the current foreclosure action untimely. The Third Department disagreed, finding that the plaintiff was not obligated to foreclose upon the first missed payment. Rather the plaintiff could wait and accelerate the debt upon any subsequent default, subject to the forfeiture of the right to recover any missed payments which occurred more than six years before the action was brought (each missed payment triggers a six-year statute of limitations):

… [P]laintiff submitted evidence establishing that the 2008 acceleration was validly revoked through the execution of the loan modification agreement, thereby causing the statute of limitations to reset as of that date. Defendants do not dispute that, even after FAPA [Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act], a validly executed loan modification agreement can reset the statute of limitations period on a previously accelerated loan, so long as the agreement complies with the writing requirements of General Obligations Law § 17-105 (1) … . * * *

Nothing in FAPA or the General Obligations Law changed the basic rule that the statute of limitations runs separately from the due date of each unpaid installment … , or, if the mortgagee elects to accelerate the entire debt, from the date of the acceleration … . * * *

Defendants’ missed payments in 2009 gave plaintiff the right to sue to recover such payments, but did not obligate plaintiff to do so. Instead, plaintiff could wait to exercise its option to accelerate the entire amount of the debt upon any subsequent default, in which case the statute of limitations would run from the date of the acceleration … , subject to forfeiture of the right to recover any missed payments that did not occur within six years prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action … . Ditech Fin. LLC v Temple, 2026 NY Slip Op 00951, Third Dept 2-19-26

Practice Point: A loan modification agreement entered within six years of the 2008 acceleration of the debt deaccelerated the debt and reset the statute of limitations (a scenario not changed by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act [FAPA]).

Practice Point: The six-year foreclosure statute of limitations starts running upon each missed mortgage payment. Here the 2018 foreclosure action was timely because it was brought within six years of a missed payment. Any missed payments which occurred prior to six years before the 2018 foreclosure was commenced were forfeited.

 

,

RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PROTECTION ACT (FAPA) DOES NOT VIOLATE THE TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE US AND NY CONSTITUTIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) does not violate the Takings Clause of the US and NY Constitutions. The Court of Appeals has already ruled that retroactive application of FAPA does not violate due process or the Contract Clause:

“Those who do business in [a] regulated field cannot object if the legislative scheme is buttressed by subsequent amendments to achieve the legislative end” … Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Marshall, 2026 NY Slip Op 00946, Third Dept 2-19-26

 

, ,

MEASUREMENT OF THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR THE FILING OF A NEW ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL (WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE TIME-BARRED) PURSUANT TO CPLR 205(A) AND CPLR 205-A CLARIFIED IN AN OPINION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, clarified how the six-month grace period for filing a new action after dismissal (CPLR 205(a) and 205-a) is measured:

This appeal provides our Court with an occasion to resolve some inconsistencies in decisional authority regarding the timing of the termination event from which the six-month grace period under CPLR 205(a) and 205-a are measured. Under certain circumstances, both statutes permit the plaintiff a six-month window to recommence an action that otherwise would be untimely, measured from the “termination” of a prior action. Is the termination of the prior action the date an order of dismissal is executed by the court, the date the order of dismissal is entered with the clerk, or the date that the order of dismissal is served upon other parties with notice of entry? Is the termination of the prior action delayed 30 days for the potential filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to CPLR 5513(a) or a motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221(d), and further delayed by the appellate process when an actual appeal is undertaken, or is there no termination of the prior action until a final judgment is entered or served with notice of entry? The answer to these questions may make a crucial mathematical difference to the timeliness or untimeliness of actions commenced within or without the six-month grace periods under CPLR 205-a and 205(a). We conclude, for reasons stated below, that when no appeal is taken by a party from an order of dismissal, the six-month period for recommencing an action under CPLR 205-a, and by extension under CPLR 205(a), begins to run once 30 days have elapsed following service of the order of dismissal with notice of entry. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Hillaire, 2026 NY Slip Op 00353, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a definitive discussion of how the six-month grace periods for the filing of a new otherwise time-barred action after dismissal pursuant to CPLR 205(a) and 205-a are measured.​

 

, ,

AT THE FORECLOSURE TRIAL, THE BANK DEMONSTRATED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT BY CERTIFIED MAIL BUT FAILED TO PROVE THE NOTICE WAS ALSO SENT BY REGULAR MAIL; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice in this foreclosure action was insufficient:

“A plaintiff can establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 by submitting domestic return receipts, proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, or an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually happened” … . Here, although the certified mailing receipt bearing the defendant’s signature upon delivery was sufficient to establish the mailing of one notice by certified mail … , the label submitted as proof of the regular first-class mailing, with no postage, no address of intended recipient, “no indicia of actual mailing such as postal codes and . . . [no] mailing receipts or tracking information” … , was insufficient to establish that the notice was actually mailed by regular first-class mail … . Since the plaintiff also failed to submit “proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed,” or testimony “from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually happened” … , the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 at the nonjury trial … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Robustello, 2026 NY Slip Op 00340, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: The RPAPL 1304 notice of foreclosure requirements must be strictly complied with. Here, at trial, the bank proved the RPAPL 1304 notice was sent by certified mail and received by the defendant, but the bank failed to prove the RPAPL 1304 notice was also sent by regular mail. The complaint was dismissed.

 

, ,

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN NEW YORK, COUNSEL WAS SANCTIONED IN THE AMOUNT OF $5000 FOR SUBMITTING AI-GENERATED BRIEFS CITING 23 “FAKE” DECISIONS; IN ADDITION, COUNSEL AND HIS CLIENT WERE EACH SANCTIONED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2500 FOR FILING A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, in a matter of first impression, determined (1) counsel for the defendant in this foreclosure action should be sanctioned for submitting appellate briefs generated by AI which cited 23 “fake” appellate decisions, and (2) counsel for the defendant and the defendant should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal: Defendant’s counsel was sanctioned in the amount of $5000 for the AI generated briefs and $2500 for the frivolous appeal. Defendant was sanctioned in the amount of $2500 for the frivolous appeal:

… [R]ecognizing this as the first appellate-level case in New York addressing sanctions for the misuse of GenAI, we find the imposition of a monetary sanction on defense counsel Joshua A. Douglass in the amount of $5,000 to be appropriate under the circumstances, with the further goal of deterring future frivolous conduct by defendant and the bar at large … . To be clear, attorneys and litigants are not prohibited from using GenAI to assist with the preparation of court submissions. The issue arises when attorneys and staff are not sufficiently trained on the dangers of such technology, and instead erroneously rely on it without human oversight. As with the work from a paralegal, intern or another attorney, the use of GenAI in no way abrogates an attorney’s or litigant’s obligation to fact check and cite check every document filed with a court. To do otherwise may be sanctionable, depending on the facts and particular circumstances of each case. * * *

Although defense counsel signed the papers filed with this Court …, it is … not unnoticed that the metadata of numerous documents indicate they originated from a program in his client’s name. Such result would be consistent with defendant filing papers pro se before Supreme Court, and defense counsel’s apparent unfamiliarity during oral argument with certain papers he allegedly filed during the pendency of this appeal. Given the baseless nature of this appeal, and recognizing that sanctions must be goal oriented to deter future conduct to prevent the waste of judicial resources and continued vexatious litigation of specific individuals too … , we conclude that an additional sanction of $2,500 shall be imposed on defense counsel … and $2,500 shall be imposed on defendant … for pursing this appeal. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier, 2026 NY Slip Op 00040, Third Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: For the first time in New York an attorney was sanctioned for submitting AI-generated briefs which cited “fake” decisions.

Practice Point: Here both counsel and his client were sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal. It was clear that the client played a role in creating the AI-generated briefs.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION ON AN EVIDENTIARY GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure action should not have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on an evidentiary ground which was not raised by the defendant:

Plaintiff … moved for summary judgment, submitting an affirmation by counsel, to which the loan documents were annexed, and an affidavit from the same first vice president, which did not attach the subject loan documents. The affiant attested that defendant failed to make monthly payments and that defendant owed plaintiff $2,302,848.55 through June 15, 2024. He did not attest that he based his knowledge of the default and amount due on his review of any records. Defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion.

… Although it is the movant’s burden to establish its entitlement to summary judgment and the failure of the nonmovant to oppose summary judgment does not obviate the movant’s need to establish its prima facie case … , “a court should not examine the admissibility of evidence submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment unless the nonmoving party has specifically raised that issue in its opposition to the motion” … . This is because courts “are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide their appeals on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” … .

On its original motion, plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing, through the affidavit of a first vice president who was also the loan officer in charge of the loan’s collection and enforcement, the existence of the consolidated note, consolidated mortgage, and the existence and amount of defendant’s default … . Defendant did not oppose the motion and thus did not raise any objections as to the admissibility of plaintiff’s evidence, and the court should not have raised evidentiary objections sua sponte … . Valley Natl. Bank v Community Prot. Church of Co-op City, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00036, First Dept 1-6-25

Practice Point: A judge should not, sua sponte, deny a motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised by the nonmoving party.

 

, ,

HERE DEFENDANT’S NON-LAWYER HUSBAND REPRESENTED HER AT THE FORECLOSURE TRIAL; THE FACT THAT THE HUSBAND HAD A POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING HIM TO ACT ON HIS WIFE’S BEHALF DID NOT AUTHORIZE HIM TO PRACTICE LAW; ALTHOUGH REPRESENTATION BY A NON-LAWYER DOES NOT RENDER THE PROCEEDINGS A “NULLITY,” HERE THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY HER HUSBAND’S REPRESENTATION AND THE JUDGE ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING THE HUSBAND TO TESTIFY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the judgment of foreclosure and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was prejudiced by her non-attorney husband’s representation of her in the trial. Although the husband, John Chae, had a power of attorney authorizing him to act on his wife’s behalf, the power of attorney did not authorize him to practice law. In addition, Supreme Court erred by not allowing the husband to testify:

“‘New York law prohibits the practice of law in this State on behalf of anyone other than himself or herself by a person who is not an admitted member of the Bar, regardless of the authority purportedly conferred by execution of a power of attorney'” … . “The designation as an attorney-in-fact under General Obligations Law §§ 5-1502A-N does not confer upon a designated agent the right to provide representation as an attorney-at-law, and ‘cannot be read to displace the provisions of Judiciary Law § 478′” … .

In this case, none of the exceptions to Judiciary Law § 478 apply. Moreover, John Chae’s marriage to the defendant did not permit him to appear pro se on her behalf … . “As a general rule, the fact that a party has been represented by a person who was not authorized or admitted to practice law under the Judiciary Law—whether a disbarred attorney or a person practicing law without a license—does not create a ‘nullity’ or render all prior proceedings void per se” … . Here, however, the record demonstrates that the defendant was prejudiced as a result of being represented by an unauthorized attorney at the trial … . Further, the Supreme Court erred in precluding the defendant from testifying at the trial (see CPLR 321[a]). Ventus Props., LLC v Mo Chae, 2025 NY Slip Op 07429, Second Dept 12-31-25

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ ATTENDANCE AT A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (CPLR 3408) IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN “APPEARANCE” IN THE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO FIVE DAYS NOTICE (PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (G)) RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, in a matter of first impression, determined defendants’ attendance at a mandatory settlement conference in this foreclosure action did not constitute an “appearance” such that defendants were entitled to five-days notice of an application for leave to enter a default judgment:

The issue on appeal, an issue of first impression for this Court, is whether a party’s attendance at a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 constitutes an appearance by a party for the purpose of CPLR 3215(g), which provides, among other things, that a party who has appeared in an action is entitled to at least five days’ notice of an application for leave to enter a default judgment. * * * Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants had not appeared in the action and, thus, the five-day notice provision set forth in CPLR 3215(g) was not applicable with respect to the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Saris, 2025 NY Slip Op 07287, Second Dept 12-24-25

Practice Point: A defendant’s attendance at a mandatory settlement conference (CPLR 3408) is not an “appearance” in the action and does not entitle defendant to five days notice (pursuant to CPLR 3215 (g)) re: plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment.

 

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