New York Court Finds an Action is Timely in Some Circumstances in CPLR 205(a) Decision
The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court's First Department recently issued a decision addressing the calculation of the six-month timeframe permitted to file a new action, according to New York's Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR) 205(a) and following the termination of a prior action. The First Department concluded that an action is timely if it is brought within six months of the termination of time to appeal a denial of a motion to renew.
In Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Gouin, a first foreclosure action was commenced in 2012 and dismissed under CPLR 3215(c) [failure to seek a default judgment] August 6, 2018. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal but did not perfect its appeal. 
CPLR 205(a), with limited exceptions, allows for the commencement of a new action after the termination of a prior timely action, provided that the commencement and service of the new action take place within six months of the termination of the prior action. The First Department held that, according to CPLR 205(a), the second action was timely because the "order denying plaintiff's motion to renew was appealable as of right" and the prior "action did not terminate until plaintiff's time to appeal that order had expired and its appeals as of right were exhausted." The fact that the plaintiff did not appeal from the denial of the motion to renew and reargue was not a factor in determining that the second action was timely because that denial was appealable as of right.
Lenders should review their portfolios to determine whether any previously dismissed action could be the subject of a timely viable motion to renew. If so, they should promptly proceed with a motion.
Topics
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

Press Release
Oct 9, 2026
Adam Topel Appointed Chair-Elect of the ABA’s TIPS Appellate Advocacy Committee

Press Release
Oct 8, 2026
Technology Service Corporation Closes on Acquisition by Blackstone-Backed Purchaser

Employment Law Observer
Oct 8, 2026
“We Didn’t Know” is No Longer an Employer Defense for Religious Accommodation Claims Under Title VII

In The News
Oct 8, 2026
Lucy Wang Analyzes What Insurers Need to Know About Two New California Laws

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Oct 8, 2026
The Rise of Management Service Organizations: How Lawyers and Lawmakers are Responding

In The News
Oct 7, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses Google’s Coverage Battle Over Social Media Addiction Claims

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 6, 2026
Mixed Messages Ongoing as Courts Disagree Whether Texts Constitute “Calls” Under the TCPA





