A de-acceleration letter wasn’t enough to reset a clock that ran out years ago
U.S. Bank just lost a second crack at a Brooklyn mortgage - 12 years after it first called the debt due.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed on November 4, 2026, that the bank’s renewed foreclosure action on a Pulaski Street property in Brooklyn was time-barred. The ruling turned on New York’s six-year statute of limitations for mortgage foreclosure actions and on the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) - the 2022 law that has redrawn the rules for lenders trying to revive stale claims.
The timeline matters here.
In January 2010, U.S. Bank National Association filed a foreclosure action against the property’s then-owner. The complaint sought the full outstanding loan balance, which under New York law accelerated the entire mortgage debt and started the six-year clock running on the whole amount owed. That 2010 action never went anywhere. A Kings County Supreme Court order directed its dismissal as abandoned in August 2013 under CPLR 3215(c).
Two years later, in November 2015, the bank allegedly sent the borrower a letter purporting to revoke the acceleration - a de-acceleration letter, in industry shorthand. Around the same time, the borrower transferred her entire interest in the property to 153 Pulaski Street, LLC.
Then came the second swing. In November 2022 - more than 12 years after the original acceleration - U.S. Bank filed a fresh foreclosure action against the LLC and others on the same mortgage. The LLC answered with a statute-of-limitations defense and moved for summary judgment, a ruling without a full trial. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the motion in a July 9, 2024, order. U.S. Bank appealed.
The appellate panel was not persuaded.
Justices found the LLC had demonstrated that the limitations period began running in January 2010 when the bank elected to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage. The 2022 action came well beyond the six-year window. The bank, in opposition, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the statute was tolled or otherwise inapplicable.
The bank’s central argument was the 2015 de-acceleration letter. Before FAPA, New York lenders had a well-worn playbook: unilaterally revoke acceleration of the mortgage debt, reset the limitations clock, file again later. It was standard practice for servicers managing distressed portfolios.
FAPA closed that door. Under CPLR 203(h), as amended by the act, a noteholder can no longer unilaterally revoke a prior election to accelerate. The court held the de-acceleration letter did not save the bank’s claim.
U.S. Bank also challenged FAPA’s retroactive application and constitutionality. The court rejected both arguments, which upheld the law. The bank’s remaining contentions were either raised for the first time on appeal or found to be without merit.
For servicers and lenders still working through legacy default portfolios in New York, this is another data point in the same direction: de-acceleration letters sent before FAPA will not revive time-barred claims, and constitutional challenges to the act are not gaining ground in the appellate courts.
