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.

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.

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.

Today’s article is about Nuruzzaman v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., an action that involves numerous areas of the law about which we frequently write -- mortgage foreclosure, FAPA, RPAPL 1501(4), CPLR 205(a), CPLR 205-A and statutes of limitation.

The Second Department has stated that an “RPAPL 1304 notice is a notice pursuant to the Home Equity Theft Prevention Act (Real Property Law § 265-a), the underlying purpose of which is to afford greater protections to homeowners confronted with foreclosure.”

This BLOG has written extensively on a wide variety of issues in the area of mortgage foreclosure. One particular area that has been the subject of numerous articles is RPAPL 1304.

Today’s article relates to a decision in a mortgage foreclosure action[1] that combines numerous concepts about which we have previously written.

Mortgages on real property are typically delivered as security for the repayment of an obligation evidenced by a promissory note. A mortgage is an encumbrance on real property. Removing the encumbrance, if given the opportunity, makes sense.

This Blog has frequently written about numerous different issues regarding residential mortgage foreclosure. One recurring issue relates to the evidentiary proof necessary for the lender to satisfy its prima facie foreclosure case and/or to demonstrate its standing to commence its foreclosure action (when the borrower raises standing as a defense).

When a borrower borrows money from a lender the repayment obligation is evidenced by a promissory note signed by the borrower and delivered to the lender.

Typically, a mortgage on real property is delivered to stand as security for the repayment of an obligation evidenced by a promissory note. A mortgage is an encumbrance on real property. If there is an opportunity to remove such an encumbrance, it makes sense to do so.