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 Naita A. Semaj of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted Petroff Amshen's clients leave to renew a May 17, 2019 decision that had given HSBC Bank, N.A. summary judgment in its foreclosure, and on renewal dismissed the case with prejudice as time-barred. Applying the 2022 Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, the court held that the stipulation ending an earlier foreclosure filed in 2009 "is silent as to revocation of acceleration," so HSBC was estopped from arguing the debt was never accelerated, and its case came more than six years after the 2009 filing. The court vacated the order of reference and granted our clients a judgment against HSBC for reasonable attorneys' fees.
HSBC's predecessor first started a foreclosure on this Bronx mortgage on April 9, 2009. That case ended with a stipulation between the lawyers dated October 26, 2016. HSBC then brought a second foreclosure on the same mortgage.
In that second case, HSBC moved for summary judgment and our clients cross-moved to dismiss it as time-barred. HSBC argued the 2009 case had never accelerated the debt, because its predecessor had not served a notice of default first, and it said the loan was later reinstated. On May 17, 2019, the court accepted that, gave HSBC summary judgment and denied the cross-motion. An order of reference, appointing a referee, was also entered.
In our experience, summary judgment is the usual way banks win foreclosure cases. Once a bank has it, many people assume the fight is over.
After that ruling, New York enacted the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act of 2022. One part of it says that voluntarily discontinuing a foreclosure, "whether on motion, order, stipulation or by notice," does not reset the six-year statute of limitations. Another part bars a lender in a later foreclosure from claiming an earlier case did not validly accelerate the debt, unless the court in that earlier case expressly ruled so.
The court applied the new law to this case, even though the 2019 ruling came before the law passed.
We moved to renew the 2019 decision based on the change in the law and asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice. HSBC repeated its old argument. Justice Semaj noted that its opposition was not backed by billing records or by an affirmation from anyone with first-hand knowledge of how the 2009 case was resolved. And even if it had been properly supported, the court said, "the arguments fail."
The stipulation discontinuing the 2009 action is silent as to revocation of acceleration or a determination that there was no proper acceleration.Supreme Court, Bronx County, Decision and Order, May 2026
Under the new law, that silence meant HSBC was estopped from arguing the debt was never accelerated. HSBC's case came "more than six years" after the 2009 filing. The court granted renewal, denied HSBC's motion for summary judgment, granted the cross-motion and vacated the order of reference.
We also asked for fees. The mortgage let the lender recover its legal fees, and under Real Property Law 282 that gives the other side a matching right. Having won dismissal with prejudice, our clients "established themselves as the prevailing party," the court held, and it entered a judgment against HSBC for their reasonable attorneys' fees.
Under the 2022 law, dropping a case does not reset the six-year clock.
The record, in order: what the law gives a lender, how the 2009 case ended, and what the court held on each argument.
Under CPLR 213(4) a foreclosure must be brought within six years. Here the clock ran from the foreclosure HSBC's predecessor filed on April 9, 2009, and HSBC's case came more than six years later.
Under CPLR 3217(e), added by the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, a voluntary discontinuance "whether on motion, order, stipulation or by notice" does not reset the limitations period. The 2009 case was dropped by stipulation in 2016, and that changed nothing.
Under CPLR 213(4)(c), a lender is estopped from arguing an earlier case did not validly accelerate the loan unless that case was dismissed on an express court ruling saying so. The 2016 stipulation said nothing of the kind, so HSBC could not make that argument.
CPLR 2221(e)(2) lets a party ask the court to renew a decision when there has been "a change in the law that would change the prior determination." That is how the 2019 summary judgment for HSBC was changed in 2026.
The mortgage let the lender recover its legal fees. Real Property Law 282 turns that into a matching right, and the court entered a judgment against HSBC for our clients' reasonable attorneys' fees.
A summary judgment for the bank is a serious setback. Here it was not the last word. Seven years after HSBC won that motion, its case was dismissed with prejudice. A motion to renew based on a change in the law let the court apply the 2022 statute to a ruling from 2019.
If a lender dropped an earlier foreclosure against you and later sued again, look hard at the dates. If more than six years passed after the first case was filed, and nothing in the paperwork ending that case said otherwise, the new law may give you a defense the bank can no longer argue around.
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.