New York Law Watch
Real Property: 2026 decisions
Ownership and use of land are grouped here, including Law Watch decisions on title, boundaries, easements and transactions involving real estate.
For Real Property, 2026 decisions, Law Watch lists 111 indexable decisions dated February 19, 2026 to November 10, 2026 across 12 decision weeks.
119 decision records: 111 meet the substance floor; 8 records are held from search listings.
Week ending November 14, 2026
Browse the week ending November 14, 2026
- Morton v Abihssira2026 NY Slip Op 06555
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action because he lacked standing under RPAPL 1501(4) after his interest in the property was extinguished by a prior foreclosure sale. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff had constructive notice of the foreclosure action as a tenant, binding him to the proceedings.
Week ending November 7, 2026
Browse the week ending November 7, 2026
- Rohlfing v 75 St. Nicholas Place, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06542
The court modified the lower court’s order to join the new owner as a party defendant rather than substituting it for the former owner, because substitution would prejudice the plaintiffs’ ability to seek discovery regarding the former owner’s willful conduct. Carryover liability applies to the current owner for overcharges by prior owners, but substitution is improper where it hinders the tenant’s litigation against the original wrongdoer.
- Rexhepi v Astoria Park Realty LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06541
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the plaintiff’s claim for a purchase price reduction under General Obligations Law § 5-1311 failed because the contract expressly allocated the risk of pre-closing loss and the plaintiff had waived inspection of the severely damaged property. The court found that the alleged damage was attributable to natural deterioration of the unsafe conditions the plaintiff knowingly accepted.
- Matter of City of New York v VYS 1535 LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06521
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s judgment to vacate the personal money judgment against the property owner and instead direct foreclosure and sale of the property to satisfy the relocation lien. The court held that the City met its prima facie burden by submitting the relocation lien as proof of expenses, and the owner failed to address the reasonableness of those expenses in opposition.
- 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.
- Trautmann v Stellar 341, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06479
The court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated causes of action for adverse possession and the doctrine of practical location. The court determined that the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants was insufficient to utterly refute the plaintiffs’ factual allegations.
- Thomas J. McCarthy Real Estate, Inc. v Herlin2026 NY Slip Op 06478
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the broker’s claim for a commission because the plaintiffs failed to establish that they produced a buyer who was ready, willing, and able to purchase the property. The court determined that the evidence demonstrated the purchasers did not meet the contractual requirements for the commission to be earned.
- Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Greenfeld2026 NY Slip Op 06445
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred, holding that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) retroactively applied to preclude the plaintiff from using the CPLR 205(a) savings provision. The court determined that a dismissal under CPLR 3215(c) constitutes neglect to prosecute under FAPA, thereby barring the plaintiff from relying on the six-month savings provision to revive the claim.
- 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.
- Desrosiers v U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.2026 NY Slip Op 06414
The court affirmed the summary judgment cancelling the mortgage, holding that the statute of limitations began to run when the prior foreclosure action was commenced, regardless of the plaintiff’s standing. The defendants were estopped from arguing the debt was not validly accelerated because the prior action was not dismissed based on an expressed judicial determination of invalid acceleration.
- Catalano v Catalano2026 NY Slip Op 06410
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s imposition of a constructive trust on real property, finding that the plaintiff established the requisite elements by clear and convincing evidence. The court determined that the defendants’ refusal to reconvey title after an oral promise constituted unjust enrichment, and that the trust was not barred by the statute of frauds.
- Blue Castle (Cayman), Ltd. v Dacosta2026 NY Slip Op 06409
The court affirmed the foreclosure judgment, holding that New York’s statute of limitations does not apply to mortgage foreclosure actions where the note was previously held by a federal agency like GNMA. As an assignee of a federal agency, the plaintiff was immune from state limitations periods, thereby defeating the defendants’ affirmative defense that the action was time-barred.
- Atlantic Adult Day Care Ctr., Inc. v Temple Beth El of Manhattan Beach2026 NY Slip Op 06406
The Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the defendant on its counterclaim for ejectment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, specific enforcement, breach of the implied covenant, and declaratory relief. The court determined that the defendant validly terminated the lease due to the plaintiffs’ failure to pay rent, rendering the plaintiffs’ remaining claims duplicative or unnecessary.
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.
- Topilin v Island House Tenant Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 06396
The court reinstated the plaintiff’s claim for breach of the warranty of habitability, holding that a tenant’s failure to procure required insurance does not waive statutory rights under Real Property Law § 235-b. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims for breach of the proprietary lease and against the lender, finding the lease terms and loan documents governed those disputes.
- Slabakis v Olympos Trading Corp.2026 NY Slip Op 51825[U]
The court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint because the plaintiff’s claim for a lost written agreement was barred by the statute of frauds and the Dead Man’s Statute, as he failed to provide admissible evidence of part performance or third-party corroboration. Additionally, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a joint venture theory due to undue delay and insufficient factual allegations regarding the sharing of losses.
- 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.
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Diakhate2026 NY Slip Op 06342
The court affirmed the judgment of foreclosure and sale, holding that the plaintiff established standing by attaching the properly endorsed note to the complaint and that the defendant, as the estate’s administrator rather than the borrower, was not entitled to the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304. Additionally, the court found that the referee’s report was properly confirmed because the findings were substantially supported by the record and the plaintiff’s loan servicer provided a proper foundation for the admission of business records.
- Newhouse v SSMG Realty, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06313
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment granting specific performance of a real property contract because the plaintiffs established they were ready, willing, and able to close. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the summary judgment motion.
- Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Hollender2026 NY Slip Op 06283
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action as time-barred, determining that the statute of limitations began running when the debt was first accelerated in 2009. The court held that unilateral de-acceleration letters failed to revive or reset the statute of limitations under CPLR 203 as amended by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act.
- BH Sterling Realty, LLC v Longoria2026 NY Slip Op 06276
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against the LLC defendants, finding that the defendants failed to conclusively establish they were bona fide purchasers for value without actual or constructive knowledge of the unrecorded contract. The court held that the documentary evidence did not utterly refute the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the defendants’ knowledge of the prior interest in the property.
- Bank of America, N.A. v Noe2026 NY Slip Op 06275
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff established its standing by demonstrating physical possession of the note at the time the action was commenced. The court determined that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing.
- 217-20 K&A, LLC v De Maio Props., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06272
The plaintiff was not eligible for a preliminary injunction because it sought injunctive relief after the expiration of the cure period. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits because obtaining prospective insurance could not retrospectively cure the default arising from the failure to continually maintain insurance coverage.
- Renaissance Midtown West LLC v Lividini & Company, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06265
The dismissal of the landlord’s claims was affirmed because the landlord failed to provide the notice required by the lease before reentering and reletting the premises after the tenant vacated. Additionally, the claims for breach of guaranty and piercing the corporate veil were dismissed due to insufficient allegations and lack of documentary evidence.
- NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v Bethelite Community Baptist Church2026 NY Slip Op 06253
The defendant lacked standing to challenge the validity of the assignments of the foreclosure bid because its rights were extinguished at the foreclosure sale. Additionally, the court properly granted a writ of assistance to a nonparty because RPAPL 221 allows any adversely affected person to bring such a motion.
Week ending October 24, 2026
Browse the week ending October 24, 2026
- Brew v Brew2026 NY Slip Op 06187
The court reversed the lower court’s grant of partial summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendants’ construction of a new roof and driveway constituted artificial means that diverted surface water onto the plaintiff’s property. The court determined that the creation of over 1,000 square feet of new impervious surface was sufficient to challenge the defendants’ claim that no artificial diversion occurred.
- Riley v Daly2026 NY Slip Op 06178
The court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ invasion of privacy claim and their cross-motion to set the boundary line by survey, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding both the intent behind the surveillance cameras and the precise location of the boundary. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the doctrine of practical location, as they failed to prove mutual acquiescence for the required period.
- Colliers Intl. NY LLC v City Hall Commons LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06195
The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for the broker, holding that a lease renewal agreement between the landlord and tenant that explicitly named the broker as exclusive and obligated the landlord to pay fees created a binding obligation to pay the commission. The court rejected the landlord’s argument that the lack of a separate brokerage agreement negated this express obligation.
- Genesee County Fish & Game Protective Assn., Inc. v Sullivan2026 NY Slip Op 06168
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff established title by adverse possession to the disputed road. The majority found that the plaintiff’s proof of hostile and exclusive possession was sufficient and that defendants failed to raise any triable issue of fact.
- Perkins v 34 215 St, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06154
The court reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the notary complied with statutory identity verification obligations and that the title company was not liable for negligence to a non-contracting party absent evidence of fraud or special circumstances.
- 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.
- Mortgage Assets Mgt., LLC v Robinson2026 NY Slip Op 06112
The court affirmed the dismissal of the mortgage foreclosure action as time-barred, holding that the statute of limitations began running upon the commencement of a prior action in 2014 and was not reset by its subsequent voluntary discontinuance. The court further granted the defendant’s counterclaim to cancel and discharge the mortgage under RPAPL 1501(4) due to the expiration of the limitations period.
- 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.
- Fareverse, LLC v Bourne2026 NY Slip Op 06099
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to toll the accrual of interest on the mortgage loan. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was responsible for unexplained delays or other wrongful conduct in the prosecution of the foreclosure action.
- Duran v FLA Mtge. Capital 2, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 06097
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action to cancel a mortgage, holding that the defendant, as an assignee of a federal agency, is entitled to immunity from New York’s statute of limitations. This immunity applies even if the defendant is an assignee of a commercial lender to which the federal agency had previously assigned the mortgage.
- Cheemanlall v Toolsee2026 NY Slip Op 06089
The court held that the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the judgment for specific performance was barred by the doctrine of laches due to unreasonable delay. However, the court reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the claim for the return of the down payment, finding that the defendant was not ready, willing, and able to perform.
- 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.
- Mella v Russian Samovar, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 06065
The out-of-possession landlord was not contractually obligated to maintain the lighting, which was not a structural defect, and was entitled to summary judgment on its cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The plaintiff’s expert evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the proximate cause of the accident.
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.
- Matter of Panasia Estate, Inc. v 29 W. 19 Condominium2026 NY Slip Op 06015
The Supreme Court properly awarded attorneys’ fees to the respondent under RPAPL 881, as the American rule does not preclude such awards to respondents who are haled into court for the petitioner’s sole benefit. A prevailing party determination is not required for these fee awards, and recent statutory amendments do not affect the court’s discretion in this regard.
- Wallkill Valley Land Trust, Inc. v Richards2026 NY Slip Op 06047
The Town of Gardiner is a necessary party to the third-party complaint because any judgment affecting the rail trail would encumber the Town’s fee ownership. Consequently, the third-party complaint must be dismissed due to the nonjoinder of this necessary party, and the defendant’s affirmative defenses are barred by res judicata resulting from the stipulation of discontinuance.
- City of New York v Heritage Health & Hous., Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05998
The court affirmed the denial of motions to dismiss, determining that the agreements at issue were licenses rather than leases because they contained broad termination rights and prohibited assignment. Consequently, the defendants were not entitled to the notice requirements applicable to terminating a tenancy.
- 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.
- Pennymac Corp. v New York City Envtl. Control Bd.2026 NY Slip Op 05966
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of a nonparty’s motion to stay enforcement of a foreclosure judgment. The court held that the nonparty was bound by the proceedings because its conveyance was recorded after the filing of a notice of pendency.
- 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.
- Matter of Marchese Assoc., LLC v Limitless Auto. Group, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05956
The court affirmed the cancellation of a notice of pendency because, once the plaintiff was determined to be entitled only to monetary damages rather than specific performance, maintaining the notice carried indicia of bad faith. The likelihood of success on the merits was deemed irrelevant to the validity of the notice under CPLR 6514.
- 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 Pamela Merrill2026 NY Slip Op 05933
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action and the grant of the counterclaim to cancel the mortgage, holding that the statute of limitations began running when the plaintiff accelerated the debt in a prior action. The court determined that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) prevents the voluntary discontinuance of a prior action from reviving or resetting the statute of limitations.
- Board of Mgrs. of Oceanview Condominium v Riccardi2026 NY Slip Op 05927
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and its grant of the plaintiff’s cross-motion for civil contempt. The court held that the law of the case doctrine barred the defendant from re-examining issues that were already determined on a prior appeal.
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeLoney2026 NY Slip Op 05925
The defendant retained standing to defend the foreclosure action because the plaintiff sought a deficiency judgment against him despite his conveyance of the property. The court affirmed the judgment of foreclosure and sale, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate a basis for vacating the summary judgment order.
- 260 Prestige Brownstone 260 Corp. v 260 Clifton Pl, Inc.2026 NY Slip Op 05923
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint because the documentary evidence did not utterly refute the plaintiff’s claim to a 50% interest in the property. The court found that the chain of title did not conclusively establish the defendant’s grantor had authority to convey a 100% interest, nor did a broker agreement establish equitable estoppel.
Week ending October 10, 2026
Browse the week ending October 10, 2026
- Falzano v Glazer2026 NY Slip Op 05873
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the unambiguous legal description in the 1989 deed conclusively established that the plaintiff had no ownership interest in the disputed right-of-way segment. The court further held that the plaintiff’s claim of unilateral mistake was insufficient to warrant reformation of the deed absent allegations of fraud.
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Edwards2026 NY Slip Op 05848
The plaintiff satisfied its prima facie burden of standing by annexing a note endorsed in blank to the complaint. The plaintiff also established compliance with RPAPL 1304 through an affidavit from a document verification specialist and attached USPS tracking records.
- 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).
- Laignelet v City of New York2026 NY Slip Op 05777
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the defendant established it did not own, occupy, control, or make special use of the property where the accident occurred. Consequently, the defendant owed no duty of care under common law or Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6).
- 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.
- 21-55 45th Road, LLC v Altamirano2026 NY Slip Op 05755
The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action, finding that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the cure of default. The court held that a dispute over the total amount of indebtedness does not preclude summary judgment on the foreclosure cause of action but is properly resolved by a referee.
- Wong v Wong2026 NY Slip Op 05753
The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly allowed evidence and argument regarding a prior owner’s status, which contradicted the law of the case. The court found that the late curative instructions were ineffective and that the improper evidence likely played a substantial role in the jury’s decision.
- Wiggins v State of N.Y. Mtge. Agency2026 NY Slip Op 05752
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action seeking to unwind a foreclosure sale of cooperative shares, holding that such relief is unavailable once a sale has occurred under UCC article 9. This rule applies equally to residential and commercial properties, regardless of whether the purchaser was the defendant or a third party.
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Parmesar2026 NY Slip Op 05728
The 2019 foreclosure action was untimely because the prior 2008 acceleration remained valid despite the 2008 action being a legal nullity. The 2019 dismissal was for lack of personal jurisdiction, precluding the application of savings provisions under CPLR 205(a) and 205-a.
- Haubold v Towers on the Park Condominium2026 NY Slip Op 05725
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty because they failed to identify any independent tortious conduct by the defendants. The enforcement of the plaintiffs’ agreement to obtain a new tax lot for their combined units did not constitute disparate treatment under the business judgment rule.
- Goldberg v Torim2026 NY Slip Op 05721
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to deny defendants’ motions for summary judgment except as to the direct cause of action for conversion against Leah Torim, finding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on tax estoppel and vicarious liability claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim but reversed the dismissal of the conversion claim due to triable issues regarding the plaintiff’s possessory interest in the proceeds.
Week ending October 3, 2026
Browse the week ending October 3, 2026
- Sutton v 76 St. Nicholas Place, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05614
The court modified the lower court’s order to substitute the purchaser as the defendant, instead ordering that the purchaser be joined as an additional defendant. This modification was necessary because full substitution would prejudice plaintiffs by introducing a knowledge defense that could diminish their potential damages.
- Petrolawicz v Ando Realty LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05611
A tenant may challenge the deregulated status of their apartment at any time during their tenancy, and the rent history may be examined beyond four years. The defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied because the submitted affidavit failed to authenticate the documents as admissible business records.
- Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v White2026 NY Slip Op 05594
A defendant who transferred their interest in the subject property by deed is divested of standing to defend a foreclosure action. Because the defendant was not an obligor on the underlying note and did not assume the debt, the broad reservation of deficiency rights did not create sufficient standing.
- 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.
- Estate of Gustavo Marcel Coba v Humberto Hernandez2026 NY Slip Op 05517
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to enforce a stipulation of settlement because the plaintiff’s own submissions raised issues of fact regarding the legal capacity of the plaintiff’s attorney to enter into the agreement on behalf of the estate. Consequently, the court affirmed the order denying the appointment of a referee to sell the property.
- 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.
- 472-476 Columbus Ave., LLC v Kretzu2026 NY Slip Op 51562[U]
The court affirmed the denial of a motion to substitute a new landlord in a holdover proceeding, finding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion. The proceeding could continue against the original landlord because the merits were already resolved and the judgment is binding on the new owners.
Week ending September 26, 2026
Browse the week ending September 26, 2026
- Bent v Cirone2026 NY Slip Op 05456
The court modified the lower court’s order to deny the dismissal of direct claims against individual board members, finding the allegations of collective participation in tortious acts sufficient at the pre-discovery stage. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of derivative claims because the plaintiff lacked the necessary membership interest in the condominium to assert such claims on behalf of unit owners.
- Weber v Barnett2026 NY Slip Op 05439
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction because the defendants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or a danger of irreparable injury. The court determined that money damages were an adequate remedy for the alleged losses regarding the distribution of real property sale proceeds.
- 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.
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Gezlev2026 NY Slip Op 05387
The right to redeem a mortgage is extinguished as a matter of law upon the completion of a foreclosure sale, even if the redemption funds are wired shortly thereafter. Consequently, the foreclosure sale cannot be set aside based on the subsequent closing or the inadequacy of the bid price alone.
- Jagnow v Pekich2026 NY Slip Op 05386
The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant declaring that the service of the notice to redeem was proper and that the tax deed was not null and void. The defendant made a prima facie showing that service complied with the Nassau County Administrative Code and due process, while the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
- Inc. Vil. of Freeport v Freeport Union Free Sch. Dist.2026 NY Slip Op 05385
The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment declaring that the Village holds fee title to the property and the School District holds only a revocable license or easement in gross. The School District failed to demonstrate that legislative approval was plainly conferred for an easement appurtenant, as parkland is impressed with a public trust requiring specific legislative authorization for alienation.
Week ending September 19, 2026
Browse the week ending September 19, 2026
- Matter of Application for a Search Warrant to Search the Premises Located at the Art Inst. of Chicago2026 NY Slip Op 05363
The Appellate Division granted the CPLR article 78 petition and vacated the lower court’s turnover orders, holding that Penal Law § 450.10 does not authorize a criminal court to adjudicate disputed property rights in the absence of a pending criminal prosecution. The court determined that because the issue of title was sharply contested, the dispute required resolution in a civil forum with full procedural protections, including the right to a jury trial if demanded.
- Zeltser v Kukolev2026 NY Slip Op 05353
The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims for breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, and partition, as they were barred by the statute of frauds or failed to state a cause of action. However, the court affirmed the denial of dismissal for the unjust enrichment counterclaims, finding that the statute of frauds does not preclude quasi-contractual recovery.
- 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.
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Curtis2026 NY Slip Op 05348
The court reversed the judgment of foreclosure and sale because the plaintiff failed to establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 by not proving that at least five of the listed housing counseling agencies served the borrower’s region. The court held that this statutory defect could not be disregarded under CPLR 2001, requiring the denial of summary judgment on the complaint.
- U.S. Bank N.A. v Kotei2026 NY Slip Op 05343
The Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale because the 2017 notice of pendency sufficiently complied with statutory requirements. The plaintiff was entitled to file a successive notice of pendency to comply with RPAPL 1331, even though a prior notice had expired.
- Stella v Doak2026 NY Slip Op 05338
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s declaration that the parties share possession and ownership of two companion dogs. The court upheld the application of the ‘best interest of the companion animal’ standard, noting the defendant did not challenge its use outside of a matrimonial action.
- Pryce v Nationstar Mtge., LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05331
The court reversed the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew, finding it timely because no final judgment had been entered. Upon renewal, the court granted summary judgment to cancel the mortgage, holding that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act prevented the prior foreclosure discontinuance from resetting the statute of limitations.
- Levine v Stellar 341, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05299
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged facts supporting claims for adverse possession and the doctrine of practical location. The evidence submitted by the defendant did not constitute documentary evidence sufficient to utterly refute the plaintiffs’ factual allegations.
- Lenihan v Muhametja2026 NY Slip Op 05298
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the fraud claim, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the defendants actively concealed property defects. The court affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract claim because the plaintiffs failed to identify any contractual provision that survived the merger of the deed.
- King v Kohn2026 NY Slip Op 05296
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against defendant Gluck, holding that the fraud allegations were duplicative of the breach of contract claims and that civil conspiracy is not an independent cause of action. Additionally, the court affirmed the vacatur of the notice of pendency because the complaint did not seek relief affecting title or possession of real property.
- Ditech Financial, LLC v Rapuzzi2026 NY Slip Op 05280
The court affirmed the dismissal of the foreclosure action because the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with RPAPL 1304 by mailing the required notice less than 90 days before commencing the action. The defendant’s cross-appeal was dismissed because he was not aggrieved by the order that granted his motion for summary judgment.
- 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.
- Conti v Marino2026 NY Slip Op 05274
The court affirmed the dismissal of fraud claims as time-barred because the plaintiff failed to commence the action within the statutory limitations period. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of quiet title claims based on the plaintiff’s failure to raise the standing argument in the main brief.
- Clarke v Spino2026 NY Slip Op 05272
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for specific performance and breach of contract, finding that the documentary evidence conclusively established that the sellers were ready, willing, and able to perform. The court further held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a return of their down payment, which was properly released to the sellers as liquidated damages.
- 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 Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Schwartz2026 NY Slip Op 05214
The defendants, who were not parties to the underlying note or mortgage, lacked standing to raise the plaintiff’s alleged failure to serve a notice of default as a defense. The plaintiff established its standing to foreclose by submitting a copy of the note, endorsed in blank, annexed to the complaint at the time the action was commenced.
- 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.
- U.S. Bank, N.A. v Ifemesia2026 NY Slip Op 05209
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to stay the foreclosure sale because the plaintiff’s delay was excused under CPLR 2004. Additionally, the court correctly denied the motion to toll interest accrual as the defendant failed to demonstrate wrongful conduct by the plaintiff.
- People v Merino2026 NY Slip Op 05196
CPL 420.45 applies to instruments containing false statements or information, not just forged signatures, allowing a court to declare a deed void ab initio following a conviction for offering a false instrument for filing. The statutory presumption that the instrument is void ab initio was not rebutted by the appellant’s evidence regarding the familial relationship or notarization.
- Gooding v Bank of N.Y. Mellon2026 NY Slip Op 05167
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s quiet title action because she failed to establish that her possession of the property was hostile or under a claim of right. The evidence showed the plaintiff was a nominal owner under an agreement with the title holder, which negated the requisite hostile intent for adverse possession.
- Garanin v Bykhovsky2026 NY Slip Op 05166
The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for wrongful eviction under RPAPL 853 because he failed to establish that he was in actual physical possession of the property. The plaintiff voluntarily moved to a side unit and only visited the main part of the home to see his children, not to occupy it.
- 11-36 31st Ave. Lender, LLC v RM Newman, LLC2026 NY Slip Op 05151
The Appellate Division reversed the judgment regarding the deficiency judgment because the plaintiff’s electronic filing of motion papers did not constitute proper service under RPAPL 1371(2). Consequently, the failure to provide proper notice served as a complete bar to the entry of the deficiency judgment.
Week ending July 25, 2026
Browse the week ending July 25, 2026
- Matter of Mahoney v Garcia2026 NY Slip Op 04687
The court affirmed the lower court’s order directing the return of a handgun because the Sheriff failed to prove that the weapon was used in the commission of an offense. Since the use of the firearm was justifiable and not criminal, it did not qualify as a nuisance weapon under Penal Law § 400.05 (1).
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
- Desai v Ninety Five Wall St. LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 06198 October 22, 2026
- H. Roske & Associates LLP v ESRT Empire State Building LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 05723 October 6, 2026
- NYCTL 2011-A Trust v 249 Brighton Corp. 2026 NY Slip Op 05320 September 16, 2026
- Hampshire Recreation, LLC v Village of Mamaroneck 2026 NY Slip Op 05169 September 2, 2026
- KAPLAN v LEVINE 89 Misc 3d 1191 March 9, 2026
- ENGLERT v RUSSELL 89 Misc 3d 969 January 16, 2026
- Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v City of New York 46 NY3d 1 January 13, 2026
- 190 MESEROLE v 188 MESEROLE 89 Misc 3d 938 January 6, 2026