
New York Compliance Update – New Mortgage Disclosure Requirement Effective June 11, 2025
June 3, 2025Who Has to Prove a Default Rate Is Unreasonable? | The Weekly Friedman
June 9, 2025On May 20, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals issued two motion decisions concerning requests for the State’s highest court to address the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (“FAPA”) enactment clause, which the lower appellate courts have interpreted to allow for the indefinitely retroactive application of FAPA statutory amendments. The Court issued the decisions in two Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) §1501(4) “quiet title” actions in which FAPA CPLR §213(4)(b) was at issue. This law provides that: “[i]n any action [commenced by a plaintiff property owner or lien holder] seeking cancellation and discharge of record of [a mortgage] a defendant [mortgagee] shall be estopped from asserting that the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitation for the commencement of an action upon the [mortgage] has not expired because the [mortgage] was not validly accelerated prior to, or by way of commencement of a prior action, unless the prior action was dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the [mortgage] was not validly accelerated.” In Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Bank, the Court accepted a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the following issues of law: “(1).[w]hether, and to what extent, Section 7 of FAPA [the CPLR §213(4)(b) “estoppel section”] applies to foreclosure actions commenced prior to the statute’s enactment; and 2. [w]hether FAPA’s retroactive application violates the right to substantive or procedural due process under the New York constitution.” In Van Dyke v. U.S. Bank N.A., the Court of Appeals granted the mortgagee’s motion for permission to appeal to the State’s high court concerning the same issue related to CPLR §213(4)(b). The Court of Appeals requires that the parties re-brief the appeals and set identical briefing schedules: (1) the mortgagees are required to file their opening briefs by June 17, 2025; (2) adversaries and State Attorney General are required to file their response briefs by July 15, 2025, and; (3) mortgagees are required to file their reply briefs by July 25, 2025. A nonparty may file an amicus curiae brief in support of the mortgagees in these appeals; amicus-related motion and briefing practice should be completed by July 25, 2025.
DISCLAIMER
This publication may constitute attorney advertising under the laws and rules of professional conduct of one or more states. The information provided in this publication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The contents are not intended to be a substitute for professional legal advice, consultation, or representation. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading or relying on this publication. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Readers should consult a qualified attorney for advice regarding their individual circumstances or any specific legal questions they may have.
If you have questions about this publication, please contact Adam Friedman, Ralph Vartolo or Michael DeRosa,
Friedman Vartolo LLP, 1325 Franklin Avenue, Suite 160, Garden City, NY 11530, Phone: (212) 471-5100 | Fax: (212) 471-5150.



