BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. 501 LLC (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant 501 Decatur Realty, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Derefim B. Neckles, J.), dated January 27, 2025.  The order denied that defendant's motion to stay a foreclosure sale of the subject property and to toll the accrual of interest on the subject mortgage note.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant 501 Decatur Realty, LLC (hereinafter the defendant), among others, to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property.  In an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale dated July 26, 2022, the Supreme Court, inter alia, directed the sale of the property.  The defendant appealed.

A foreclosure sale of the property was scheduled to be held on March 9, 2023.  According to the plaintiff, the sale was canceled due to “a tax lien issue.”  A new foreclosure sale was noticed for January 11, 2024.  On January 8, 2024, the defendant submitted a proposed order to show cause, among other things, to stay the foreclosure sale based on the plaintiff's failure to comply with RPAPL 1351(1).  The plaintiff submitted a letter in opposition stating, inter alia, that the foreclosure sale had already been canceled because the defendant perfected its appeal from the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale.  The proposed order to show cause apparently was never signed.

Thereafter, a foreclosure sale of the property was scheduled to be held on January 9, 2025.  The defendant moved to stay the foreclosure sale and to toll the accrual of interest on the mortgage note.  The plaintiff opposed the motion.  In an order dated January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion.  The defendant appeals.  Meanwhile, in a decision and order dated June 25, 2025, this Court affirmed the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Ifemesia, 239 AD3d 1022).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of its motion which was to stay the foreclosure sale for failure to comply with RPAPL 1351(1).  “RPAPL 1351(1) was amended, effective December 20, 2016, to provide that a judgment of foreclosure and sale shall direct that the subject property be sold within ninety days of the date of the judgment” (Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Dunn, 230 AD3d 1327, 1329 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Ramsamooj, 219 AD3d 1402, 1403).  “[S]tatutory time frames ․ are not options, they are requirements, to be taken seriously by the parties” (Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Dunn, 230 AD3d at 1329 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  However, under CPLR 2004, “[e]xcept where otherwise expressly prescribed by law, the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or order for doing any act, upon such terms as may be just and upon good cause shown, whether the application for extension is made before or after the expiration of the time fixed.”  In exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to CPLR 2004, a court may consider such factors as the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and any prejudice to the opposing party (see Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Dunn, 230 AD3d at 1329;  Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Ramsamooj, 219 AD3d at 1403).  Here, under the circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiff's delay pursuant to CPLR 2004 (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v Entwistle, 241 AD3d 1240, 1242;  Bank of Am., N.A. v Cord, 214 AD3d 934, 936).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was to toll the accrual of interest on the mortgage note.  “ ‘A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court’ ” (Onewest Bank, FSB v Kaur, 172 AD3d 1392, 1393–1394, quoting Rajic v Faust, 165 AD3d 716, 717).  “Once equity is invoked, the court's power is as broad as equity and justice require” (id. at 1394 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Rajic v Faust, 165 AD3d at 718).  “ ‘In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court's discretion.  The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party’ ” (Onewest Bank, FSB v Kaur, 172 AD3d at 1394, quoting BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v Jackson, 159 AD3d 861, 862;  see CPLR 5001[a] ).  Here, the defendant sought to toll the accrual of interest on the mortgage note.  However, as the defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was responsible for unexplained delays or other wrongful conduct (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v Entwistle, 241 AD3d at 1242;  Board of Mgrs. of the Poseidon Condominium v Constantino Prop. Mgt., LLC, 224 AD3d 650, 652), the court providently exercised its discretion in denying that relief.

LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, TAYLOR and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.