New York Appeals Court Applies 2022 Foreclosure Reform Law to Dismiss a Long-Running Case

For homeowners facing a foreclosure action that seems to drag on, or that resurfaces years after a bank first tried and abandoned an earlier case against the same property, a New York State law that took effect at the end of 2022 has become one of the most consequential tools available to challenge a lender's timing. A decision issued this month by the Appellate Division, Second Department, shows just how far that tool's reach now extends — even into cases where a court had already ruled years before the law existed.

In Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Conforti, decided September 16, 2026, the plaintiff bank had originally commenced a foreclosure action against the defendant homeowner in December 2011. That action was later voluntarily discontinued. The bank then commenced a second foreclosure action in May 2018, and the homeowner cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing the new action was filed too late. Under the law as it stood at the time, that motion was denied on May 15, 2019 — largely because courts then generally treated a lender's voluntary discontinuance of an earlier action as resetting the clock on the six-year statute of limitations for foreclosure claims.

That changed on December 30, 2022, when the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, known as FAPA, took effect. Among other changes, FAPA amended CPLR 3217(e) to specify that a plaintiff's voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action does not "waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset" the limitations period, and amended CPLR 203(h) to make clear that once a foreclosure claim has accrued, no party may unilaterally revive or reset when that clock started running. Relying on this change, the homeowner moved to renew the summary judgment motion that had been denied back in 2019 — but the Supreme Court denied that motion to renew in 2024.

The Second Department reversed. The panel held that a motion to renew is the appropriate vehicle for asking a court to reconsider an earlier ruling in light of an intervening change in the law, and that FAPA's amendments were exactly that kind of change. Applying FAPA's rule to the facts, the court found that the six-year limitations period on the bank's foreclosure claim began running in December 2011, when the original action was commenced and the full mortgage debt was called due. Because the voluntary discontinuance of that 2011 action no longer resets the clock under FAPA, the limitations period expired in December 2017 — several months before the bank's May 2018 action was filed. The 2018 action was therefore untimely, and the Second Department held it was properly dismissed.

FAPA has reshaped a significant slice of New York foreclosure litigation since it took effect, largely by closing off a practice sometimes described as reviving "zombie" foreclosure cases: lenders discontinuing an action, waiting, and later refiling as though the limitations clock had restarted. Conforti extends that reform's practical impact by confirming that homeowners are not necessarily limited to raising FAPA in foreclosure cases filed or decided after the law took effect — a motion to renew can bring FAPA's protections to bear even on a summary judgment ruling issued years earlier, as long as the underlying case is not otherwise finally resolved.

For New York homeowners currently facing a foreclosure action, particularly one connected to an earlier action against the same property that was discontinued rather than resolved, the timeline matters as much as anything else in the case. Determining exactly when an earlier action was commenced, what happened to it, and whether a subsequent filing falls outside the six-year window FAPA now protects can be the difference between a case proceeding to a merits defense and a case being dismissed outright as untimely.

Homeowners, buyers, and sellers anywhere in New York State with questions about a pending or resurfacing foreclosure action, or about how the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act might apply to their property, are welcome to contact Baltazard Law Office, which represents clients in residential and commercial real estate matters across New York State, for guidance.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Sources

1. "Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Conforti, 2026 NY Slip Op 05262" — https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_05262.shtml — Appellate Division, Second Department, New York State Unified Court System, Official Reports (decided September 16, 2026)
2. 
   
3. "A motion to renew a summary judgment motion is the appropriate vehicle for addressing a change in the law — FAPA warranted vacating the prior order" — https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/2026/09/16/a-motion-to-renew-a-summary-judgment-motion-is-the-appropriate-vehicle-for-addressing-a-change-in-the-law-here-the-foreclosure-abuse-prevention-act-effective-december-30-2022-warranted-vacating-th/ — New York Appellate Digest (September 16, 2026)
4. 
   
5. "Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act in a Nutshell" — https://alblawfirm.com/articles/foreclosure-abuse-prevention-act-in-a-nutshell/ — Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.

By Baltazard Law Office