Today’s BLOG deals with the “Relation-Back Doctrine” (the “Doctrine”)[1], which, inter alia, “allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are “‘united in interest.’”

When a court issues a decision and order that is self-effectuating, nothing further from the parties is required. Sometimes, however, a court’s decision will direct that the prevailing party either: (a) submit an order or judgment for the court to consider; or, (b) submit or settle an order or judgment, on notice, for the court’s consideration.

CPLR 3215(c) mandates dismissal of a complaint as abandoned if a plaintiff fails to take proceedings for a default judgment within one year of a defendant’s default, unless “sufficient cause” (a reasonable excuse and potentially meritorious claim) is shown. Recent cases clarify what qualifies as “taking proceedings.”

CPLR 322(a) permits a defendant in an action affecting title to real property to demand proof that the plaintiff’s counsel was authorized to commence the action.

RPAPL 1304 requires that at least ninety days before commencing legal action against a borrower with respect to a “home loan” (as defined in the relevant statutes), a lender must: send written notice to the borrower by certified and regular mail that the loan is in default; provide a list of approved housing agencies that offer free or low-cost counseling; and, advise that legal action may be commenced after ninety days if no action is taken to resolve the matter.

In New York, the equity of redemption is a long standing common law right that allows those with certain interests in real property to redeem mortgaged property and prevent a foreclosure sale by tendering the full amount due at any time before the foreclosure sale.

In prior BLOG articles, we discussed the court’s power to toll the accrual of interest in mortgage foreclosure actions.

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger A basic tenet of contract interpretation is that “agreements are construed in accord with the parties’ intent.” Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc. , 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569 (2002) (citations omitted); see also SM Owner, LLC v. Envoy Towers Co., L.P. , 245 A.D.3d 973 (2 nd Dept. 2026). It is equally fundamental that the “best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing.” Greenfield , 98 N.Y.2d at 569 ( quotin

By Jonathan H. Freiberger On March 17, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department, decided HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Nicholas , a mortgage foreclosure action that addresses many of the issues raised in our prior BLOG articles. HSBC involves the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (“FAPA”), and the statute of limitations in foreclosure actions. By way of brief background, FAPA went into effect in December of 2022, and “represents the Legislature’s response to litigation strat

On January 28, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department, decided Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Starr, a mortgage foreclosure action that addresses many of the issues raised in our prior BLOG articles.

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and Generative Artificial Intelligence (“GenAI”) are all the rage these days.

This BLOG has previously addressed the issue of a defendant’s appearance in an action – both formal and informal.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In New York, foreign business entities – e.g. , corporations, limited liability companies, and partnerships authorized to do business in another jurisdiction or country – are required to register to do business with the Secretary of State. The failure to receive such authority deprives the foreign entity of the ability to affirmatively access the courts of New York and subjects any action commenced by the foreign entity to dismissal. The purpose of the r

. By Jonathan H. Freiberger Last Week in our BLOG article: “ Just When You Thought It Could Not Get More Unanimous, The Court of Appeals Determines that FAPA’s Retroactive Application Does Not Violate the Due Process or Contract Clauses of the United States Constitution or the Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process Under the New York Constitution – Part 1 ,” we discussed FAPA and the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Van Dyke v. U.S. Bank, N. A. , in which the C

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Last Week in our BLOG article: “ It’s Unanimous – The Fourth Department Joins the Other Departments and Confirms the Retroactive Application of FAPA ,” we again discussed FAPA and noted that on November 25, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals decided two cases: Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank , and Van Dyke v. U.S. Bank, N. A. , in which the Court determined that retroactive application of FAPA’s provisions passes constitutional muster und

Today’s article is about MCLP Asset Co. v. Zaveri, an action that involves numerous areas of the law about which we frequently write -- mortgage foreclosure, FAPA, CPLR 205(a), CPLR 205-A and statutes of limitation.

On October 31, 2025, the Supreme Court, Kings County, decided loanDepot.com LLC v. Ortner, a case addressing the meaning of the “taking proceedings” requirement of CPLR 3215(c).

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Today’s article addresses M & T Bank v. Givens , a case decided on October 15, 2025, by the Appellate Division, Second Department. Givens addresses three issues encountered in mortgage foreclosure actions: motions for extensions of time pursuant to CPLR 2004 , the 90-day requirement to conduct foreclosure sales pursuant to RPAPL 1351(1) and the tolling of interest due to a lender’s delays in prosecuting its foreclosure action. CPLR 2004 CPLR 2004

Today’s BLOG deals with the “Relation Back Doctrine” (the “Doctrine”), which, inter alia, “allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are “‘united in interest.’"”

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger Appearing in an action may give rise to a waiver of a litigant’s right to challenge the court’s jurisdiction over the litigant. As explained in prior blog articles, it is axiomatic that a “plaintiff appears merely by bringing it.” Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Hall , 185 A.D.3d 1006, 1007 (2 nd Dep’t 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Once served with process, a defendant must appear in an action to avoid a default. CPLR 320