On July 30, 2025, the Appellate Division, Second Department, decided Medina v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., holding that the lender’s 2018 foreclosure action was untimely based on the retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (“FAPA”) statutory amendment because a 2008 acceleration (the “Original Foreclosure”) triggered the six-year statute of limitations and no new action occurred within that period. The lender recommenced foreclosure in 2018 only after the borrower brought a quiet title action in 2016 – which itself followed the voluntary discontinuance of the Original Foreclosure in 2012. Medina (1) reinforces FAPA’s ability to retroactively extinguish a once-timely foreclosure and previously valid revocation of an acceleration via discontinuance, and (2) is yet another appellate rejection of a lender’s attempt to restart the clock after the limitations period has expired. Applying FAPA, the Court ordered the mortgage canceled and discharged under RPAPL 1501(4), rejecting constitutional challenges and aligning with a growing line of unfavorable appellate decisions concerning FAPA. For lenders and servicers, Medina is an unfortunate reminder: New York courts are enforcing FAPA with rigor, and constitutional challenges to its retrospective application are being uniformly rejected.

The Court reaffirmed that the six-year window begins as soon as the loan is accelerated and remains unaffected by voluntary discontinuance. Medina also highlights the finality of that rule: if lenders fail to act within such six-year period, they lose the right to foreclose. This decision underscores the importance of the amicus brief filed in U.S. Bank N.A. v. Fox, No. 24-1178 (U.S. July 1, 2025), now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Submitted on behalf of five national and state trade associations, the brief outlines constitutional concerns with FAPA’s retroactive reach—particularly its impact on CPLR 205-a, the longstanding complexity of New York’s foreclosure process, and the loss of key procedural tools lenders historically used to manage defaulted loans. While state courts continue to apply FAPA broadly, the petition in Fox calls for a review of whether that retroactivity is consistent with due process and takings protections under federal law. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for mortgage enforcement across the state.

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.