• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • About
  • Services
  • Team
  • Blog
  • Careers
  • Contact

Recent New York Statute of Limitations decision

January 26, 2021 by Adam Friedman

The Appellate Division Second Department has issued a recent decision in Bank of N.Y. v Hutchinson 2021 NY Slip Op 00284 Decided on January 20, 2021, further clarified the application of the statute of limitations and whether plaintiff must attest to payments under a prior action modification.

In this case, the plaintiff filed foreclosure for failure to make monthly payments due August 1, 2008 and all payments thereafter.  The defendant moved for summary judgment alleging that the action was barred by the six year statute of limitations and alleged that the mortgage debt was accelerated by virtue of the commencement of an action on February 15, 2006.  The 2006 action was voluntarily discontinued on April 2, 2007, and the instant action was commenced February 2, 2016.   The plaintiff submitted a loan modification from November 2006 and consent to cancel lis pendens.  

The court determined that, to the extent the plaintiff sought to collect unpaid principal and interest payments due before February 2, 2010, it was barred by the six-year limitations period. The court also denied those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for summary judgment on her first, second, and third counterclaims, for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and attorney’s fees, respectively, and pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130.1-1 for sanctions. The defendant appealed.

Here, the Court found that the defendant met their initial burden and that the burden the shifted to the plaintiff.  Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff’s submission of the loan modification agreement, which “clearly and unambiguously demanded a resumption of monthly installment payments on the note”, and the consent to cancel lis pendens, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff had revoked its election to accelerate the full balance of the mortgage debt within six years from February 15, thereby warranting denial of summary judgment to the defendant. Plaintiff was not required to submit proof of installment payments made under the loan modification agreement. The defendant’s unsubstantiated and conclusory claim that she was prejudiced because she relied on the voluntary discontinuance of the 2006 action to enter into a contract to sell the property to a third party, was deemed insufficient to invalidate the revocation.  Therefore, the Supreme Court’s order was affirmed.

If you have any questions regarding this case, please contact Deborah Gallo, Director of Operations, at dgallo@friedmanvartolo.com.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

PRACTICE AREAS

  • Default Services
  • Residential
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Commercial Transactions
  • Foreclosures
  • Bankruptcy
  • Evictions

POPULAR ARTICLES

New York Court of Appeals issues impactful Engel decision

Recent New York Statute of Limitations decision

COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 and Administrative Orders

Recent decision clarifies RPAPL 1302-a

NY Bill S4190 requires including name & telephone number of the mortgage servicer on FC documents

NY Administrative order 232/20 released

New York Foreclosure sales slowly move forward

NYC DCA issues revisions to Debt Collection rules effective 10/1/2020

The New York Split on whether Default Letters are deemed Acceleration of the Loan Continues…

New York State Office of Court Administration issues Guidance on Evictions

Authors Name

Adam Friedman (5)
  • New York Court of Appeals issues impactful Engel decision
  • Recent New York Statute of Limitations decision
  • COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020 and Administrative Orders
  • Recent decision clarifies RPAPL 1302-a
  • NY Bill S4190 requires including name & telephone number of the mortgage servicer on FC documents
Michael Derosa (3)
  • A Good Faith Notice Before Moving For Default
  • No More “Re-Notice” Requirement Westchester and Putnam County
  • How Quickly Can a Mortgagee Complete an Uncontested Foreclosure Action in NY?
Ralph Vartolo (1)
  • Criticism of Cuomo’s Certificate of Merit Law & The Real Effects It Will Have

Footer

MCM Categories

  • Slider Background
  • Team Detail Page Photo
  • Team Main Page Photo

© 2021 Friedman Vartolo LLP. All Rights Reserved

This website may constitute attorney advertising under the New York Code of Professional Responsibility. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

DESIGNED BY BOFILL TECH