Facing foreclosure? Petroff Amshen LLP is a New York consumer rights and foreclosure defense law firm. We find the defense in your file and take it to court.
Free case review. Confidential. Representation is by application.
Quick AnswerIn May 2026, Justice Menachem M. Mirocznik of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed a foreclosure that JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, filed in August 2016 on a Brooklyn property, after the borrower died less than three months into the case. By its own account, Chase knew of the death no later than August 2017, but it did not move to substitute anyone, name an heir or lift the stay until December 29, 2025. Acting for the borrower's daughter, Petroff Amshen asked the court to dismiss the case for that delay. The court found Chase "demonstrated an extreme lack of diligence," had no acceptable excuse, and caused severe harm, including over $150,000 in accrued mortgage interest. It denied Chase's motion to bring the daughter into the case and directed the Clerk to cancel the four notices of pendency.
JPMorgan Chase Bank filed this foreclosure on August 8, 2016, over a mortgage the borrower had signed on a Brooklyn property. Less than three months later, on October 22, 2016, he died without a will. Under New York law, a party's death puts the case on hold until a proper representative is brought in.
Chase kept going anyway. Its papers say the borrower was served in hand on December 13, 2016, about seven weeks after he died. The court later called that affidavit "patently false." In June 2017 the bank obtained a default judgment and an order appointing a referee, against a man who was no longer alive. The court held that order a nullity.
By the bank's own account, it learned of the death no later than August 2017, when an attorney for the estate contacted its office. It filed papers in Surrogate's Court in January 2019 and then, as the court put it, let them "languish for years." In the foreclosure itself, Chase did not move to substitute anyone, name an heir or lift the stay until December 29, 2025. That is more than nine years after the borrower died. At that point it asked the court to bring his daughter into the case as his heir.
We represented his daughter. Instead of letting Chase restart the case against her, we asked the court to dismiss it. CPLR 1021 lets a court dismiss a case when the party suing fails to substitute a representative for someone who has died within a reasonable time. We argued that nine years is not reasonable by any measure.
Justice Menachem M. Mirocznik agreed. He found that Chase "demonstrated an extreme lack of diligence" and that its delay "was anything but reasonable." He noted that the Appellate Division has found delays of three and four years too long.
Chase blamed the slow pace of the Surrogate's Court. The judge did not accept that. The bank had let its own petition there sit, and it never asked the Supreme Court to appoint a temporary administrator, which it could have done. The court quoted a long-standing appellate rule:
The duty of prosecuting the action rests on the one who brings it, not on the one who defends it.Supreme Court, Kings County, Decision, Order and Judgment, May 2026
Chase also never offered an affidavit from anyone who actually knew the loan. Its motion rested on a lawyer's affirmation. And the court found the harm to our client was severe. More than $150,000 in mortgage interest had built up while the case sat dormant, and the one person who knew the loan firsthand could no longer testify. The bank offered to stop the interest from running if the court would keep the case alive. The court refused, writing that "equity is poorly served by preserving an action in which the only borrower has been dead for a decade."
Even counting from August 2017, the court found, Chase "allowed eight years to pass."
The record, in order: what the delay cost, what courts have found too long, and what the court held on each argument.
Under CPLR 1015, when a party dies the case is stayed until a proper representative is substituted. The order entered against the borrower after his death was a nullity, and the court called the affidavit saying he was served after he died "patently false."
If no one is substituted within a reasonable time, the case may be dismissed. The court looks at how diligent the party suing was, the harm to the other side, and whether its claim has shown potential merit.
The Appellate Division has found delays of three and four years too long. Chase took more than nine, and even counting from August 2017, when it says it learned of the death, it "allowed eight years to pass."
Chase pointed to the Surrogate's Court. But it had let its own petition there sit, and the Supreme Court can appoint a temporary administrator to avoid delay. Chase never asked.
Over $150,000 in interest had accrued, and the only person who knew the loan firsthand could not testify. Offering to stop the interest was not enough to keep the case alive.
Families often learn about a foreclosure only after a parent dies, and by then it can feel like the bank holds every card. This case shows how much the bank's own conduct matters. A lender that sues has to keep its case moving, and when a borrower dies, it has to bring the right people in within a reasonable time. Chase let more than nine years go by.
If a foreclosure was filed against a parent or spouse who has since died, bring us the court file. We will look at how long the bank waited and what it did in the meantime.
I could not recommend a better group than Petroff Amshen. If you find yourself in a situation that requires the assistance of attorneys, this is the firm.
After years of battling in court, thousands of dollars in legal fees, and quite a few subpar attorneys, we found Petroff and Amshen, who delivered winning results. They're incredibly easy to talk to, making the whole legal process feel less intimidating.
An effective firm with a minimum of fuss. When you need attorneys who actually do the work, you need these guys on your side.
Petroff Amshen does not take every case. Submit the application and a licensed New York attorney will review the matter directly. The case review is free and confidential.