21st Mortgage Corporation v. Jin Hua Lin, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Mortgage foreclosure—whether a borrower or junior lienor may file a post-judgment motion to renew, before the foreclosure sale, to invoke the retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA).
The Supreme Court denied Renaissance's motion to stay and vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to renew its prior summary judgment motion.
The Appellate Division reversed the denial, granted the motion (granting leave to renew), and remanded for consideration on the merits; it also recalled and vacated its prior October 2, 2025 decision.
After the Court of Appeals in Article 13 LLC v Ponce De Leon Fed Bank clarified that the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) [statute aimed at limiting foreclosure abuses and clarifying/restricting time limits and practices in mortgage foreclosure actions] applies retroactively to all foreclosure actions where a final foreclosure sale has not been concluded, a party may timely seek relief by a motion to renew filed before the sale. Renaissance’s January 2024 motion to renew under CPLR 2221(e)(2) [rule authorizing renewal motions based on new facts or a change in the law] was therefore timely because the foreclosure sale had not yet occurred.
Background
In this mortgage foreclosure action, the Supreme Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale on July 12, 2023. The lender served notice of entry on July 27, 2023, and the Appellate Division found the computer-generated filing stamp on the judgment sufficient to establish the entry date. In January 2024, following enactment and subsequent clarification of the retroactive scope of FAPA, Renaissance (a defendant-appellant and junior lienor) moved to stay and vacate the judgment and to renew its earlier summary judgment motion based on the change in law.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court (New York County) denied Renaissance’s motion to stay and vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and denied leave to renew. Implicit in the denial was the view that the motion was untimely or otherwise not a proper vehicle after entry of judgment and expiration of the appeal period.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that under Article 13 LLC v Ponce De Leon Fed Bank, FAPA applies retroactively to cases in which a foreclosure sale has not yet been concluded, and that a motion to renew filed before the sale is the proper means to effectuate that retroactivity even after entry of judgment and expiration of the appeal time. Because a foreclosure judgment is enforced only when the sale is concluded, Renaissance’s January 2024 renewal motion was timely. The court reversed, granted the motion (granting leave to renew), and remanded for the Supreme Court to consider the renewed motion on the merits. The court also confirmed that the notice of entry correctly reflected the July 12, 2023 entry date and recalled and vacated its prior October 2, 2025 decision.
Legal Significance
This decision clarifies First Department procedure post-FAPA: parties may seek FAPA-based relief by a motion to renew filed any time after judgment but before the foreclosure sale is concluded, because only then is the judgment 'enforced.' It aligns with Guardian Loan and subsequent cases on when enforcement occurs and provides guidance on timeliness and vehicle (renewal) for raising FAPA retroactivity, while confirming that a computer-generated entry stamp suffices to establish entry for notice-of-entry purposes.
In foreclosure cases, a FAPA-based motion to renew filed after judgment but before the auction is timely and must be heard on the merits; the foreclosure judgment is not enforced until the sale is concluded.