On Nov. 25, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals issued a decision in Article 13, LLC v. LaSalle Natl. Bank Assoc., No. 96, 2025 WL 3272351 (N.Y. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2025) examining the New York Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) (L 2022, ch 821). FAPA was enacted on Dec. 30, 2022, and it amended several statutes governing foreclosure actions, including CPLR § 213(4), which is the six-year statute of limitations to bring a foreclosure action. Section 7 of FAPA amends CPLR § 213(4) by stating that a lender is now estopped from arguing that a prior foreclosure action did not validly accelerate the loan and, thus, did not trigger the six-year statute of limitations, unless the prior foreclosure action was dismissed based upon an expressed judicial determination, made upon a timely interposed defense, that the loan was not validly accelerated.
In Article 13, a junior lienholder commenced a quiet title action in federal court in 2020 seeking to extinguish the client’s mortgage lien as time-barred because a prior foreclosure action was commenced in 2007, which was ultimately discontinued in 2017 due to standing issues. The federal district court initially found an issue of fact as to whether the client’s former loan servicer had standing to bring the foreclosure action. Subsequently, FAPA was enacted and the district court found that the lender was estopped from making this argument based on Section 7 of FAPA and therefore granted summary judgment to the junior lienholder. On appeal, the Second Circuit certified the following two questions to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) Whether, or to what extent does, Section 7 of FAPA applies retroactively to foreclosure actions commenced before FAPA’s enactment, and (2) Whether FAPA’s retroactive application violates the right to substantive and procedural due process under Article I, Section 6 of the New York Constitution. The Second Circuit also invited the New York Court of Appeals to answer these questions in whatever order it deems appropriate and to modify or expand these questions to the extent it wishes to do so.
On Nov. 25, 2025, the Court of Appeals answered the first certified question by stating that the factors for determining retroactivity identified in In re Gleason (Michael Vee, Ltd.) 96 N.Y.2d 117 (2001) “support the conclusion that FAPA Section 7 applies retroactively.” 2025 WL 3272351, at *4. The Court of Appeals answered the second certified question in the negative, finding that retroactive application of FAPA violated neither substantive nor procedural due process under the New York Constitution. 2025 WL 3272351, at *5 (“FAPA’s application to this action passes constitutional muster”). The Court reasoned that the six-year statute of limitations was unchanged, and that FAPA only “clarified” New York’s estoppel doctrine. Further, the Court held that lenders had no “vested interest” as they merely claimed “the right to wait long past the limitations period to challenge the validity of a foreclosure action that could have been challenged and refiled by the actual holder of the note and mortgage at any time during the six-year limitations period.” 2025 WL 3272351, at *6. The Court of Appeals, however, did not reach the issue of whether retroactive application of FAPA violated the Takings Clause of the New York Constitution. 2025 WL 3272351, at *8 n.5.
Greenberg Traurig (Patrick G. Broderick and Steven Lazar) represented the appellant LaSalle National Bank Association. Rosenberg Fortuna & Laitman (Anthony Filosa) represented respondent Article 13 LLC. The Office of the New York State Attorney General was intervenor and represented by Mark S. Grube.