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 AnswerOn July 2, 2026, Justice Derefim B. Neckles of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, denied Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale and dismissed its 2008 foreclosure against Petroff Amshen's client. The Court held the bank moved for judgment more than fourteen years after the November 4, 2010 order of reference, far past the one-year deadline of Rule 7 (formerly Rule 8), and failed "to proffer any explanation or excuse." It also held the bank violated RPAPL 1301 by starting a second foreclosure on the same mortgage in 2015 without the court's permission.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for a 2006 mortgage securitization trust, started this foreclosure in Kings County on April 2, 2008. It named our client as a defendant and sought to foreclose a mortgage on a Brooklyn property.
On November 4, 2010, the court entered an order of reference. That is the order that appoints a referee to calculate how much the bank claims is owed, and it is usually the last big step before the bank asks for a judgment of foreclosure and sale.
The bank did not take that step for more than fourteen years. On June 4, 2025, it finally moved to confirm the referee's report, to get a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and to have the sale money distributed. By then the case had been pending for more than seventeen years. We opposed the motion and cross-moved to dismiss the case.
We gave the Court two reasons the bank should not get its judgment, and Justice Neckles accepted both.
The first was the delay. Under the court's foreclosure rule, now Rule 7 and formerly Rule 8, a lender has to move for a judgment of foreclosure within one year after the order of reference is entered. Deutsche Bank missed that by more than thirteen years. When a lender misses the deadline, it has to give the court a reasonable excuse.
In opposition plaintiff fails to proffer any explanation or excuse for its failure to move within the timeframe for judgment of foreclosure and sale.Decision and Order, July 2, 2026
Because there was no excuse, the Court did not even need to consider whether the bank's underlying claim had merit.
The second was the bank's second lawsuit. RPAPL 1301 says that while one foreclosure is pending, the lender cannot start another action to recover the same mortgage debt without permission from the court handling the first. On January 12, 2015, Deutsche Bank started a second foreclosure on this same mortgage. It never asked this Court's permission. That second case was later discontinued in March 2022, but the Court held the damage was done: the bank "commenced the second action without first obtaining leave of court," and so it "failed to comply with RPAPL 1301." The Court also pointed to a 2026 appellate decision holding that when a lender starts a second case this way, the first one is deemed discontinued as of the date the second one began.
The bank also argued that our client could not raise any of this because he had been in default. The Court rejected that argument.
The referee was appointed on November 4, 2010. The court rules gave the bank one year to ask for a judgment. It asked on June 4, 2025, and offered no excuse.
The record, in order: what the rules give a bank, what this bank took, and what the Court held on each point.
Rule 7, formerly Rule 8, requires a foreclosing plaintiff to move for a judgment of foreclosure within one year of entry of the order of reference. The Court quoted the Second Department's statement of the rule in Retained Realty, Inc. v. Koenig (2018). The deadline is meant to keep foreclosures moving once the debt has been referred for computation.
When a plaintiff misses the deadline, the court decides whether its excuse is reasonable. That presumes there is one. Deutsche Bank offered none. Under Bhatti v. Empire Realty Associates (2012), without a reasonable excuse the court need not consider whether the claim has merit.
RPAPL 1301(3) bars a lender from starting or maintaining another action to recover the same mortgage debt while a foreclosure is pending, without leave of the court where the first action was brought. The bank started a second foreclosure in 2015 without leave. The Court held that violated the statute. The second case was later discontinued in March 2022, but the bank had still started it without permission. It cited OneWest Bank, FSB v. Johnson (2026), under which the prior action is deemed discontinued as of the date the subsequent action was commenced.
The bank argued that a defendant in default cannot raise these defenses. The Court rejected that argument.
We still see foreclosures from the 2008 era that are open. Some of them sit untouched for years and then start moving again, with the bank asking for a sale as if nothing had happened in between. The years a bank lets slip by can matter as much as the default it is suing over.
Check the dates in your own case: when the order of reference was entered, when the bank finally asked for a judgment, and whether it ever started a second foreclosure on the same loan. None of this is automatic. It is found by reading the file and litigating what the dates show.
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.