On October 21, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Nassau County ruling that a lender’s foreclosure action was time-barred and that the mortgage should be cancelled and discharged of record.
Background
The mortgage dated from 2006. The lender’s predecessor first sued to foreclose in 2009, then voluntarily discontinued that case in 2014. In 2018, the lender sued again. At that time, courts had held that discontinuing the first case de-accelerated the loan and gave the lender a fresh six-year window, so the homeowners’ statute of limitations defense failed. The Appellate Division affirmed that result in 2022. James J. Quail & Associates, P.C. represented the homeowners throughout.
What changed
In December 2022, New York enacted the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). Among other things, FAPA provides that voluntarily discontinuing a foreclosure action does not reset or extend the statute of limitations. The homeowners asked the trial court to revisit its earlier decision based on this change in the law.
The ruling
The trial court agreed. It dismissed the complaint as time-barred, directed that the mortgage be cancelled and discharged of record, and denied the lender’s request for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. On appeal, the Second Department affirmed. It held that:
- The six-year limitations period began running in July 2009, when the lender’s predecessor filed the first action and called the entire loan due.
- Under FAPA, discontinuing that action did not reset the clock, so the 2018 action came too late.
- The homeowners’ motion to renew was timely, because no judgment of foreclosure had been entered.
- The lender’s arguments that FAPA could not be applied retroactively and violated the state and federal constitutions were without merit.
Takeaway
FAPA applies to foreclosure cases already in progress, and courts have repeatedly upheld it against constitutional challenge. If you were told years ago that your mortgage was still enforceable, or you lost a statute of limitations argument before 2023, the law may have changed in your favor. [Attorney Name] and the team at James J. Quail & Associates, P.C. can review your case. Contact us.
Case: HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. You, 2025-01363 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept Oct. 21, 2026), affirming Index No. 604116/18 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County). Counsel for respondents: James J. Quail & Associates, P.C. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.