M&T Bank v Givens
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Residential mortgage foreclosure—timeliness of foreclosure sales and equitable tolling of interest where the lender delays post-judgment sale.
Granted the lender’s motion to extend the time to conduct the foreclosure sale by 90 days and denied the borrower’s cross-motion to toll interest.
The denial of the borrower’s tolling request; the order was modified to toll interest accruing after February 17, 2020.
Under New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1351(1) [a foreclosure judgment must direct that the property be sold within ninety days of the date of the judgment] and Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 2004 [permits a court to extend statutory, rule, or order deadlines upon good cause, even after the time has expired], the court affirmed an extension of time but held that the lender offered no adequate explanation for missing the original 90‑day sale deadline, which expired before COVID-19 foreclosure stays began. Equity does not permit a lender to profit from its unexplained delay, so post–February 17, 2020 interest is tolled.
Background
The lender commenced a foreclosure action in March 2016 on Rockland County property. An order and judgment of foreclosure and sale entered November 19, 2019 directed sale within 90 days (by February 17, 2020). Although a sale was scheduled for January 21, 2020, the lender requested a postponement to conduct an internal file review, and the sale did not occur before the deadline. In June 2022, the lender moved under CPLR 2004 to extend the time to conduct the sale; the borrower opposed and cross-moved to toll interest from the expiration of the 90-day deadline.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nov. 4, 2022), granted the lender’s CPLR 2004 motion to the extent of extending the sale deadline by 90 days from the date of the order and denied the borrower’s cross-motion to toll interest.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified on the facts and in the exercise of discretion: the extension of time to conduct the sale was affirmed, but the borrower’s cross‑motion was granted to the extent of tolling interest after February 17, 2020, because the lender’s delay prior to COVID‑19 stays was unexplained. As modified, the order was otherwise affirmed without costs.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that while courts may extend the RPAPL 1351(1) 90‑day sale period under CPLR 2004 upon good cause, lenders cannot accrue interest for periods attributable to their unexplained delay—especially where the original sale deadline lapsed before pandemic-related stays. Equity in foreclosure actions permits tolling of interest to prevent a windfall to the lender.
Courts may extend foreclosure sale deadlines for good cause, but if a lender unjustifiably misses the RPAPL 1351(1) 90‑day sale window, interest may be tolled from the deadline date to prevent the lender from benefiting from its own delay.