New York Court of Appeals Accepts Certified Questions on Whether FAPA Should be Retroactively Applied
The New York Court of Appeals has finally agreed to consider whether retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (“FAPA”) (or sections of it) violates the New York Constitution. Over the last two years, New York and federal trial and appellate courts have grappled with this question. Indeed, three of the four Appellate Divisions have ruled – with minimal analysis – that retroactive application does not violate the New York (or United States) Constitution. Until now, the Court of Appeals has avoided taking up the matter.
FAPA was enacted on December 30, 2022, and it amended several provisions specific to the statute of limitations period for enforcing notes and mortgages in default in New York, including the General Obligations Law, Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") § 213, and the creation of CPLR § 205-a, among others. FAPA’s substantial impact on the statute of limitations period for enforcing a mortgage debt has resulted in significant litigation.
For over two years, trial court decisions have reached diametrically opposite conclusions. Previously, in East Fork Funding LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sought guidance from New York’s highest court through certified questions. However, that request was unceremoniously rejected.
Now, this past week, in Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank, the New York Court of Appeals accepted the following two certified questions from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:
- Whether or to what extent does Section 7 of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, codified at CPLR § 213(4)(b), apply to foreclosure actions commenced before the statute’s enactment?
- Whether FAPA’s retroactive application violates the right to substantive and procedural due process under the New York Constitution, N.Y. Const., art. I, § 6?
Relatedly, on the same day, in Van Dyke v. U.S. Bank, N.A., the Court of Appeals also granted leave to appeal a New York State Court decision involving FAPA’s application. Both appeals will likely be heard and decided together as they involve the same issues of law.
These cases will hopefully provide the long-awaited resolution to the question that will affect thousands of pending (and, potentially, recently dismissed) matters, likely by the end of 2025. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court may also involve itself by accepting the petition for certiorari filed in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Fox, which remains pending.
Stay tuned for more FAPA updates.
Subscribe to receive timely legal insights directly in your inbox.
Featured Insights

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance


