MTGLQ v. City of New York Environmental Control Board, et al., Defendants. (2026)

Rosenberg Fortuna Filosa & Laitman, LLP, Garden City (Anthony R. Filosa of counsel), for appellant.

Friedman Vartolo LLP, New York (Ronald P. Labeck of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Kahn, III, J.), entered on or about April 28, 2026, which denied defendant-appellant's motion for leave to renew plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, defendant's cross-motion to amend the answer and dismiss the action, and plaintiff's motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant timely moved for leave to renew pursuant to the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) before the “final judgment of foreclosure and sale” was “enforced” (L 2022, ch 821, § 10;  see 21st Mtge. Corp. v. Jin Hua Lin, 246 AD3d 648, 648–649 [1st Dept 2026];  see also Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank, 45 NY3d 441, 448–453 [2025] ).  Nonetheless, Supreme Court providently denied leave to renew even though FAPA effected a change in the law, as it would not change the prior determinations in the circumstances of this action (CPLR 2221[e][2];  see also Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Hasty, 247 AD3d 715, 717–718 [2d Dept 2026] ).  The record demonstrates that defendant specifically waived the statute of limitations defense by stipulation executed prior to answering the complaint (see Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P., 7 NY3d 96, 104 [2006];  see also 721 Borrower LLC v Premier Digital Equip.  Servs.  Inc., 245 AD3d 582, 583 [1st Dept 2026] ).  This express waiver bars him from asserting the defense (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Nicholas, 252 AD3d 201, 203 [1st Dept 2026] ).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.