Deutsche Bank, Natl. Trust Co. v. Wong

Deutsche Bank, Natl. Trust Co. v Wong 2026 NY Slip Op 05934 October 14, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Deutsche Bank, National Trust Company, etc., appellant, v Vicki Suhyun Wong, respondent, et al., defendants. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on October 14, 2026 2024-12047, (Index No. 704450/18) Angela G. Iannacci, J.P. Paul Wooten Lourdes M. Ventura Lisa S. Ottley, JJ. Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, New York, NY (Shawn A. Brenhouse of counsel), for appellant. Binakis Law, P.C., Astoria, NY (Patrick Binakis of counsel), for respondent. [*1] DECISION & ORDER In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered August 21, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon renewal, adhered to a prior determination in an order of the same court dated July 2, 2020, granting those branches of the motion of the defendants Vicki Suhyun Wong and Mimi Hyun which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Vicki Suhynun Wong and on that defendant's counterclaim pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record the subject mortgage, and denying that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim of the defendant Vicki Suhynun Wong pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record the subject mortgage. ORDERED that the order entered August 21, 2024, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The underlying facts of this case are set forth in this Court's decision and order on a prior appeal (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Wong, 218 AD3d 742). As relevant to this appeal, in March 2018, the plaintiff commenced the instant action against the defendants Vicki Suhyun Wong and Mimi Hyuan (hereinafter together the defendants), among others, to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property located in Queens Village. Wong interposed a verified answer asserting various affirmative defenses, including the expiration of the statute of limitations and, inter alia, a counterclaim pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage (hereinafter the first counterclaim). In September 2019, the defendants moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Wong and on Wong's first counterclaim, arguing that the plaintiff had accelerated the debt when it commenced a prior action to foreclose the mortgage in January 2008 (hereinafter the 2008 action). The plaintiff opposed the motion and cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the first counterclaim. In an order dated July 2, 2020, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Wong and on the first counterclaim, and denied that branch of the [*2]plaintiff's cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first counterclaim. The plaintiff appealed, and this Court reversed the July 2, 2020 order insofar as appealed from, determining, inter alia, that the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that this action was time-barred and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact since, under the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) (L 2022, ch 821, § 8 [eff Dec. 30, 2022]), the voluntary discontinuance of the 2008 action did not revoke the acceleration of the loan or reset the statute of limitations (see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Wong, 218 AD3d 742). Nevertheless, as the plaintiff challenged the retroactive application and constitutionality of FAPA, and the Supreme Court had not considered those issues in determining the underlying motion and cross-motion, this Court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings (see id.). Thereafter, in an order entered August 21, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted leave to renew and, upon renewal, adhered to its prior determination in the July 2, 2020 order granting those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Wong and on the first counterclaim, and denying that branch of the plaintiff's cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the first counterclaim. The plaintiff appeals. The plaintiff's contentions that FAPA does not apply retroactively and that such retroactive application would violate the Due Process Clauses of the United States and New York Constitutions and the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution are without merit (see Van Dyke v U.S. Bank, N.A., 45 NY3d 461; Article 13 LLC v Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank, 45 NY3d 441; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. ["Fannie Mae"] v Brach, 247 AD3d 849, 851). Accordingly, we affirm the order entered August 21, 2024, insofar as appealed from. IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court