New York Law Watch
The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act in the Appellate Division
Updated November 4, 2026 · 14 decisions
The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act amended CPLR 203, 205, 213, 3217 and RPAPL 1301 to stop lenders restarting the six-year limitations period after accelerating a mortgage. The Appellate Division has applied it retroactively to pending actions and appeals. The decisions here hold that a voluntary discontinuance of a prior action does not revoke acceleration or reset the clock, that a prior dismissal for neglect bars the CPLR 205-a savings provision, that commencing a second action without leave discontinues the first, and that constitutional challenges under the Takings and Contracts Clauses fail. Two Third and First Department decisions mark the edges: a bilateral loan modification can still de-accelerate the debt (Ditech v Temple), and an attorney stipulation tolling the period in a prior action remains enforceable (HSBC v Nicholas).
Edited by Eric McAvey.
The decisions
U.S. Bank N.A. v Rahman
Appellate Division, Second Department · November 4, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 06481
Holding 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.
the de-acceleration letter did not revoke the prior election to accelerate the debt
2026 NY Slip Op 06481, at the official text
Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Greenfeld
Appellate Division, Second Department · November 4, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 06445
Holding 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.
the plaintiff's contention that it was entitled to rely on the savings provision of CPLR 205(a), notwithstanding the dismissal of the prior action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), is precluded by FAPA
2026 NY Slip Op 06445, at the official text
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Ford
Appellate Division, Second Department · October 28, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 06343
Holding 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.
the voluntary discontinuances of the 2007 action and the 2008 action did not serve to reset or revive the statute of limitations
2026 NY Slip Op 06343, at the official text
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Min Young You
Appellate Division, Second Department · October 21, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 06102
Holding 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.
the voluntary discontinuance of the 2009 action did not serve to revive or reset the statute of limitations
2026 NY Slip Op 06102, at the official text
Federal National Mortgage Association v Fishbein
Appellate Division, Second Department · October 21, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 06100
Holding 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.
no party may, in form or effect, unilaterally revive or reset the accrual thereof
2026 NY Slip Op 06100, at the official text
U.S. Bank, NA v Lang
Appellate Division, Second Department · October 14, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 05990
Holding 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.
FAPA replaced the savings provision of CPLR 205(a) with CPLR 205-a in actions upon instruments described in CPLR 213(4)
2026 NY Slip Op 05990, at the official text
Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Fernandez
Appellate Division, Second Department · October 14, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 05962
Holding 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.
FAPA replaced the savings provision of CPLR 205(a) with CPLR 205-a in actions, like this one, upon instruments described in CPLR 213(4)
2026 NY Slip Op 05962, at the official text
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Pamela Merrill
Appellate Division, Second Department · October 14, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 05933
Holding 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.
no party may, in form or effect, unilaterally revive or reset the accrual thereof
2026 NY Slip Op 05933, at the official text
MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v Rivera
Appellate Division, Second Department · September 30, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 05525
Holding 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.
the former action shall be deemed discontinued upon the commencement of the other action
2026 NY Slip Op 05525, at the official text
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hira
Appellate Division, Second Department · September 30, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 05515
Holding 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.
the voluntary discontinuance of such action, whether on motion, order, stipulation or by notice, shall not, in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period
2026 NY Slip Op 05515, at the official text
Bank of New York Mellon, etc., respondent, v Patricia L. Conforti, etc., defendants, 35 Pleasure, LLC, appellant.
Appellate Division, Second Department · September 16, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 05262
Holding 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.
the voluntary discontinuance of the 2011 action did not de-accelerate the mortgage debt, and, thus, the applicable limitations period expired in December 2017
2026 NY Slip Op 05262, at the official text
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Pulver
Appellate Division, Fourth Department · July 24, 2026
Law Watch record: 2026 NY Slip Op 04591
Holding 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.
we conclude that CPLR 205-a, enacted as a part of FAPA, renders this action time-barred
2026 NY Slip Op 04591, at the official text
HSBC Bank v Nicholas · 252 AD3d 201 · March 17, 2026 · Official decision · held
Ditech Fin. LLC v Temple
Appellate Division, Third Department · February 19, 2026
Law Watch record: 252 AD3d 180
Holding 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.
The loan modification agreement acknowledged the mortgage debt and made an express promise to pay it, thereby satisfying the necessary writing requirements of General Obligations Law § 17-105 (1) to de-accelerate the loan and to reset the statute of limitations
252 AD3d 180, at the official text
Statute
CPLR 203; CPLR 205-a; CPLR 213; CPLR 3217; RPAPL 1301.
Published November 4, 2026. Updated November 4, 2026.