HSBC USA v. LLC (2026)

Submitted—December 11, 2025

DECISION & ORDER

A/

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Larry D. Martin, J.), dated June 30, 2022.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Vista Holdings, LLC, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In March 2013, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant Vista Holdings, LLC (hereinafter the defendant), among others, to foreclose a mortgage encumbering certain real property located in Brooklyn (hereinafter the 2013 foreclosure action).  In an order dated November 30, 2016, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted the defendant's motion to strike the complaint “based upon plaintiff's defiance of two separate court orders.”  By decision and order dated November 27, 2019, this Court affirmed that order (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Branker, 177 AD3d 954).

In October 2020, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, among others, to foreclose the mortgage.  The defendant thereafter moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the action was time-barred.  The plaintiff opposed the motion.  In an order dated June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant's motion.  The plaintiff appeals.

“ ‘An action to foreclose a mortgage is governed by a six-year statute of limitations (U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Boreshesky, 241 AD3d 1385, 1386, quoting U.S. Bank N.A. v. Santos, 218 AD3d 827, 828;  see CPLR 213[4] ).  “ ‘[E]ven if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire debt’ ” (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Mongru, 241 AD3d 970, 973, quoting Sarkar v Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 225 AD3d 641, 643;  see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Salko, 241 AD3d 851, 855).  “Acceleration occurs, inter alia, by the commencement of a foreclosure action wherein the holder of the note elects in the complaint to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Salko, 241 AD3d at 855;  see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Hirschman, 240 AD3d 725, 726).

Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the six-year statute of limitations began to run in March 2013, when the plaintiff commenced the 2013 foreclosure action and elected to call due the entire amount secured by the mortgage (see U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Boreshesky, 241 AD3d at 1387).  The defendant further established that this action was commenced in October 2020, more than six years later (see CPLR 213[4];  U.S. Bank N.A. v. Hirschman, 240 AD3d at 726).

In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether this action was timely commenced pursuant to CPLR 205(a).  “ ‘[D]ismissal of an action for failure to comply with discovery orders is a dismissal for neglect to prosecute the action within the meaning of CPLR 205(a)’ ” (Marrero v. Crystal Nails, 114 AD3d 101, 109 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy & Drake, Architects & Landscape Architects, P.C. [Habiterra Assoc.], 5 NY3d 514, 518).  Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court sufficiently stated specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct demonstrates a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation (see id.).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it as time-barred.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are either without merit or improperly raised for the first time in reply on appeal.

DUFFY, J.P., FORD, LOVE and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court