New York Law Watch
Mortgage Foreclosure: 2026 decisions
Mortgage enforcement is the subject of this collection, including Law Watch decisions on acceleration, standing, limitations periods and the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act.
For Mortgage Foreclosure, 2026 decisions, Law Watch lists 58 indexable decisions dated February 19, 2026 to November 4, 2026 across 11 decision weeks.
63 decision records: 58 meet the substance floor; 5 records are held from search listings.
Week ending November 7, 2026
Browse the week ending November 7, 2026
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v Kogan2026 NY Slip Op 06485
The court held that the plaintiff was estopped from arguing that the mortgage debt was not validly accelerated by a prior 2007 action because that action was dismissed for failure to comply with a court order, not for lack of standing. Consequently, the 2015 foreclosure action was time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Walker2026 NY Slip Op 06482
The plaintiff failed to establish standing or strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, requiring the denial of its motion for summary judgment. However, the defendants failed to meet their burden on cross-motion to dismiss the complaint based on those same grounds.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Rahman2026 NY Slip Op 06481
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred because the statute of limitations began running when the plaintiff accelerated the debt in a prior action. The court held that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act prohibits a noteholder from unilaterally revoking a prior election to accelerate the debt.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Baidoo2026 NY Slip Op 06480
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment and foreclosure judgment because she failed to offer a reasonable excuse for her default in opposing the plaintiff’s motions. Consequently, the defendant was precluded from asserting defenses based on lack of standing or failure to comply with RPAPL 1304.
- MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v Mazza2026 NY Slip Op 06430
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred because the debt was accelerated by a prior action that was dismissed for neglect, thereby precluding the plaintiff from using the savings provision of CPLR 205-a under the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act. The court further held that the retroactive application of FAPA to this action was constitutional and did not violate due process or contract clauses.
Week ending October 31, 2026
Browse the week ending October 31, 2026
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee, v Helena Laurino, Also Known as Helena T. Laurino, Appellant, et al., Defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06371
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of foreclosure and sale, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment due to insufficient proof of a reasonable excuse. The court further upheld the confirmation of the referee’s report, rejecting the defendant’s challenges to the evidence and calculations as unsupported by admissible record evidence.
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, etc., respondent, v Eric Leder, etc., appellant, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06349
The inclusion of relevant bankruptcy rights information in the same envelope as the RPAPL 1304 notice did not violate the separate envelope requirement. Additionally, the loan servicer was properly authorized to send the required notices under a limited power of attorney.
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Boyd2026 NY Slip Op 06347
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment, holding that the defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by actively litigating the action without first asserting an objection. Additionally, the prior order denying the motion to dismiss was the law of the case regarding the jurisdictional arguments.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Iqbal2026 NY Slip Op 06344
The plaintiff failed to establish standing for summary judgment because it did not submit admissible evidence proving it held the note at the time the action was commenced. The court affirmed the denial of the motion, noting that the plaintiff’s reliance on a servicer’s affidavit without personal knowledge or supporting records constituted inadmissible hearsay.
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Ford2026 NY Slip Op 06343
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred, determining that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) constituted a change in the law that warranted reconsideration of the statute of limitations. Under FAPA, the voluntary discontinuance of prior foreclosure actions did not revive or reset the limitations period for the current action.
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Alexander2026 NY Slip Op 06341
The court reversed the judgment of foreclosure and sale because the plaintiff failed to take proceedings toward entry of a default judgment within one year of the defendant’s default. The plaintiff’s excuses for the delay were deemed conclusory and unsubstantiated, requiring dismissal of the complaint against the defendant as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c).
- HSBC Mtge. Corp. (USA) v Gewirtz2026 NY Slip Op 06286
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment by producing the note, mortgage, and admissible business records of default. The court also affirmed the striking of the defendant’s affirmative defense of lack of standing, as the plaintiff was the original lender in direct privity with the defendant.
- Citibank, NA v Moskovits2026 NY Slip Op 06279
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s grant of leave to enter a default judgment and denial of the defendant’s cross-motion for a late answer because the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default. The court further held that the defendant waived any claim regarding personal jurisdiction by appearing in the action without moving to dismiss on that ground.
- 21st Mortgage Corporation v. Hindy Rosenfeld2026 NY Slip Op 06273
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to require a hearing on the validity of service of process, as the defendant’s sworn denial sufficiently rebutted the presumption of service. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to serve unknown heirs because the statutory period under CPLR 205-a had expired.
Week ending October 24, 2026
Browse the week ending October 24, 2026
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Sukljian2026 NY Slip Op 06191
The court reversed the grant of summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish standing as the holder of the note at the time the action was commenced. Specifically, the plaintiff did not provide evidence that the allonges containing the necessary endorsements were firmly affixed to the note when the lawsuit began.
- U.S. Bank National Association, etc., respondent, v William L. Vetri, etc., appellant, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06162
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s cross-motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that newly discovered evidence would have produced a different result. Additionally, the defendant failed to establish a potentially meritorious defense or any fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the plaintiff to support relief under CPLR 5015(a)(3).
- U.S. Bank National Association, etc., appellant, v Leon Pursoo, respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 06161
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause or an interest of justice for extending the time to serve the defendant. The plaintiff’s failure to serve within the statutory 120-day period, coupled with a lack of evidence showing reasonable diligence or actual notice, warranted the vacatur of the prior order and dismissal of the complaint.
- New Residential Mtge., LLC v Tobing2026 NY Slip Op 06127
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to vacate a prior foreclosure judgment and dismiss the complaint as time-barred. The court determined that the statute of limitations began running when the original 2008 action commenced and was not reset by the voluntary discontinuance of that action.
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Mohassib2026 NY Slip Op 06103
The Appellate Division modified the judgment by denying the motion to confirm the referee’s report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale because the affiant failed to establish a proper foundation for the business records relied upon. The court also granted the intervenor’s application to toll the accrual of interest for specific periods of unexplained delay in the prosecution of the action.
- HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Min Young You2026 NY Slip Op 06102
The court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting the defendants’ motion to renew and dismissing the foreclosure complaint as time-barred. The court held that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) retroactively amended CPLR 3217(e) to prevent the voluntary discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action from resetting the statute of limitations.
- Federal National Mortgage Association v Taylor2026 NY Slip Op 06101
The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal order because the subsequent foreclosure action was adjudicated time-barred. Under RPAPL 1301(4), this adjudication renders the earlier action barred by the statute of limitations as well.
- Federal National Mortgage Association v Fishbein2026 NY Slip Op 06100
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred, holding that the voluntary discontinuance of a prior action did not reset the statute of limitations under the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act. The court determined that the plaintiff could not unilaterally revive the accrual of the cause of action after the initial acceleration of the mortgage debt.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas, etc., respondent, v Favio Taveras, etc., et al., defendants, Freddy Duran, appellant.2026 NY Slip Op 06096
The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for leave to renew because the defendant improperly asserted a new legal argument rather than relying on new facts or a change in law. Additionally, the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a complaint, to prove that a prior action to foreclose the same mortgage was pending.
- Bethpage Federal Credit Union v Anthony Pepe2026 NY Slip Op 06085
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff because the RPAPL 1304 notices failed to include the mandatory website address for the NYS Office of the Attorney General’s Homeowner Protection Program. Consequently, the notices were facially defective, and the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.
- Bank of America, N.A. v Maddox2026 NY Slip Op 06084
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff because the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie standing and strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice requirements. Specifically, the plaintiff could not prove it held the note at the time of commencement or that the required 90-day notice was sent by both certified and first-class mail.
Week ending October 17, 2026
Browse the week ending October 17, 2026
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v David Lopez, Jr., etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.2026 NY Slip Op 06037
A property owner who is not the original borrower lacks standing to raise defenses based on the lender’s failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 or contractual pre-foreclosure notice requirements. Such defenses are personal to the original borrower and cannot be asserted by a transferee or heir who is a stranger to the note and mortgage.
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Begum2026 NY Slip Op 05996
The judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed because the plaintiff established standing and compliance with RPAPL 1303 notice requirements. The appellant’s objections to the referee’s report were deemed untimely, and her remaining arguments were either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or without merit.
- US Bank National Association, etc., respondent, v Jason Vento, appellant, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05991
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s confirmation of the referee’s report because the referee failed to identify documents or sources supporting the finding that the mortgaged premises should be sold in one parcel. The matter was remitted for a new determination regarding whether the property can be sold in parcels.
- U.S. Bank, NA v Lang2026 NY Slip Op 05990
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred because the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) replaced the CPLR 205(a) savings provision with CPLR 205-a, which does not apply to prior actions dismissed as abandoned. Consequently, the plaintiff could not rely on the six-month savings provision to toll the statute of limitations for the new action.
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Fernandez2026 NY Slip Op 05962
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred and the cancellation of the mortgage, finding that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applied retroactively to preclude the plaintiff from using the CPLR 205(a) savings provision after a prior dismissal for neglect. The six-year statute of limitations began running upon the acceleration of the debt in the prior 2007 action, and the current action was commenced too late to be timely.
- Deutsche Bank, National Trust Company, etc., v Vicki Suhyun Wong, respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05934
The court affirmed the lower court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) could not be applied retroactively. The court held that the voluntary discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action did not revoke the acceleration of the loan or reset the statute of limitations.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Roy Hall2026 NY Slip Op 05932
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the plaintiff an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint under CPLR 306-b, finding that the extension was justified in the interest of justice. The court also rejected the defendant’s argument for dismissal based on failure to comply with RPAPL 1303, as the statute does not apply to non-owner-occupied properties.
- Matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Papailias2026 NY Slip Op 05922
The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff adequately established the defendant’s default, compliance with statutory notice requirements, and standing. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the defendant’s affirmative defenses, deeming them refuted, conclusory, or abandoned.
Week ending October 10, 2026
Browse the week ending October 10, 2026
- Wilmington Trust, N.A. v Stradtman Park, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05883
The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s denial of duplicative interest and its reduction of attorneys’ fees, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the reasonableness of its requested rates and that the default rate interest rendered the note rate interest duplicative.
- U.S. Bank National Association v Mahmood Ali, et al.2026 NY Slip Op 05823
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment and foreclosure because the plaintiff failed to establish compliance with HUD regulations requiring a meeting prior to debt acceleration. The court determined that the defendant’s affirmative defense regarding this regulatory failure was sufficiently pleaded under CPLR 3015(a).
- Point 62, LLC v 192 E. Lindbergh, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05817
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment and order of reference. The court found that unique circumstances warranted vacating the judgment in the interests of justice because the defendant raised an affirmative defense that the State-owned property cannot be subject to tax foreclosure.
- NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v Phillip2026 NY Slip Op 05802
The court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to vacate prior orders, holding that the decedent’s death did not divest the court of jurisdiction because a default judgment had already been entered. Additionally, the court ruled that CPLR 317 is inapplicable to tax lien foreclosure actions and that the defendants failed to establish a basis for vacating the default under CPLR 2004 or 3012(d).
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Fales2026 NY Slip Op 05767
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of foreclosure and sale because the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment within one year of the defendant’s default. Consequently, the court granted the defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c).
- Bank of America, N.A. v Russell2026 NY Slip Op 05759
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the foreclosure action as time-barred. The court determined that the defendants were equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitations defense because their misconduct, including false occupancy certifications, caused the plaintiff’s delay in filing suit.
- DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v Mahadeo2026 NY Slip Op 05719
The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff established standing by attaching the original note to the certificate of merit. The defendant’s submission of a prior version of the note without allonges was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding standing.
Week ending October 3, 2026
Browse the week ending October 3, 2026
- U.S. Bank Trust N.A. v Mosseri2026 NY Slip Op 05568
The court reversed the judgment of foreclosure and sale because the plaintiff failed to establish that it obtained physical possession of the original note and allonge. The submitted records were insufficient to prove that the plaintiff was the real party in interest or that the transaction involved the transfer of the original documents.
- Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc. v Perez2026 NY Slip Op 05562
The death of a defendant in a foreclosure action automatically stays proceedings pending the substitution of a personal representative, rendering any subsequent court determinations a nullity. Consequently, the amended order and judgment of foreclosure and sale entered after the decedent’s death were invalid.
- MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v Rivera2026 NY Slip Op 05525
The court held that the original foreclosure action was effectively discontinued as a matter of law when the plaintiff’s predecessor commenced a second foreclosure action without leave of court. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to restore the original action to the active calendar, requiring the dismissal of the complaint against the defendant.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc., appellant, v Salah Mohamed, respondent, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05516
The court held that a sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure complaint was improper because the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a status conference order did not constitute the extraordinary circumstances required for such an action. Consequently, the dismissal order was vacated, the action was restored to the active calendar, and the matter was remitted for a determination on the merits of the motion to confirm the referee’s report.
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hira2026 NY Slip Op 05515
The foreclosure action was time-barred because the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) prevents a voluntary discontinuance of a prior action from revoking the acceleration of the mortgage debt. Consequently, the six-year statute of limitations began running when the initial action was commenced, rendering the subsequent action filed more than six years later invalid.
- Bank of New York Mellon, etc., v Alida Izquierdo, et al., defendants, Marlon Izquierdo, appellant2026 NY Slip Op 05511
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment and sale, finding that the defendant’s delay in seeking relief under CPLR 5015(a)(3) was unreasonable. The court also determined that the defendant failed to provide any basis for relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4).
- Banc of California, N.A. v Plumbing Supply Distribution, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05510
The Appellate Division reversed the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment. The court found that the plaintiff’s affidavit did not contain personal knowledge of the default and failed to attach the underlying business records, rendering the evidence inadmissible hearsay.
Week ending September 26, 2026
Browse the week ending September 26, 2026
- Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v Dimura2026 NY Slip Op 05406
The Supreme Court properly vacated a prior order entered upon the defendants’ default due to improper service of motion papers, which deprived the court of jurisdiction. Additionally, the court properly dismissed the complaint against the defendants because the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with RPAPL 1304 by mailing a single 90-day notice jointly addressed to both borrowers rather than separate notices to each.
Week ending September 19, 2026
Browse the week ending September 19, 2026
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v Hilario2026 NY Slip Op 05351
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish standing under UCC 3-804 regarding a lost note. However, the court modified the lower court’s order to delete the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, finding that no extraordinary circumstances warranted such dismissal.
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v Dresdner2026 NY Slip Op 05350
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c). The court held that the plaintiff failed to take proceedings for entry of judgment within one year of default and failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay.
- U.S. Bank Trust, National Association, etc., v Edmond Dweck, etc., et al., respondents, et al., defendants.2026 NY Slip Op 05342
The plaintiff failed to establish its standing to commence the action because the purported allonge containing an endorsement in blank was not firmly affixed to the note as required by UCC 3-202(2). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses.
- Ditech Fin., LLC v Epstein2026 NY Slip Op 05278
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action because the statute of limitations had expired, as the discontinuance of a prior 2007 action did not de-accelerate the mortgage debt. The court held that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) was properly applied retroactively to bar the claim.
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Han Yang Cho2026 NY Slip Op 05277
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to vacate a sua sponte dismissal order, finding that the dismissal was improper and that the plaintiff was not required to move for leave to renew. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment and an order of reference, as the plaintiff made the requisite showing and the defendant’s opposition was insufficient to defeat the presumption of proper service.
- Bank of New York Mellon, etc., respondent, v Patricia L. Conforti, etc., defendants, 35 Pleasure, LLC, appellant.2026 NY Slip Op 05262
The Appellate Division reversed the foreclosure judgment, holding that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) constituted a change in the law that allowed the defendant to renew its motion for summary judgment. The court determined that the voluntary discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action did not de-accelerate the mortgage debt under FAPA, rendering the current action untimely under the six-year statute of limitations.
Week ending September 5, 2026
Browse the week ending September 5, 2026
- Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, etc., v Nina Fischman, et al.2026 NY Slip Op 05212
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of foreclosure and sale because the plaintiff’s RPAPL 1304 notice, issued before a statutory amendment, failed to satisfy the condition precedent for commencing the action after the amendment’s effective date. Consequently, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and to strike the affirmative defense regarding non-compliance with RPAPL 1304 was denied.
- Federal National Mortgage Association v Gooch2026 NY Slip Op 05165
The foreclosure action was a legal nullity because it was commenced against a deceased mortgagor rather than her estate’s personal representative. Subsequent amendments to substitute heirs or add defendants did not cure the jurisdictional defect or effectuate jurisdiction over the estate.
Week ending July 25, 2026
Browse the week ending July 25, 2026
- Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pulver2026 NY Slip Op 04591
The court affirmed the dismissal of the mortgage foreclosure action, holding that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) applies retroactively to bar the action because the prior dismissal was due to neglect. The court further rejected constitutional challenges to FAPA and determined that a trial period plan did not reset the statute of limitations.
Week ending February 21, 2026
Browse the week ending February 21, 2026
- Ditech Fin. LLC v Temple252 AD3d 180
The Appellate Division held that a validly executed loan modification agreement de-accelerated the mortgage debt and reset the statute of limitations, rendering the subsequent foreclosure action timely. The court rejected the lower court’s reliance on res judicata and standing issues, finding that the agreement satisfied the writing requirements of General Obligations Law § 17-105 (1) to revive the lender’s right to sue.
Also decided
- MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v Vazquez 2026 NY Slip Op 06386 October 29, 2026
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Katz 2026 NY Slip Op 06126 October 21, 2026
- Bank of New York Mellon v Pryce 2026 NY Slip Op 05263 September 16, 2026
- Aurora Loan Services, LLC v Miller 2026 NY Slip Op 05153 September 2, 2026
- HSBC Bank v Nicholas 252 AD3d 201 March 17, 2026