In a significant ruling for mortgage foreclosure cases, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York reversed a lower court's decision that dismissed U.S. Bank's foreclosure complaint against Boris Nektalov. The court's decision, issued on October 21, 2026, clarifies important aspects of New York's foreclosure laws and the timelines involved in such cases.
The case, identified by docket number 2025-01027, revolves around a mortgage foreclosure action initiated by U.S. Bank in April 2013. The ruling affects not only U.S. Bank and Nektalov but also sets a precedent for similar cases in New York, particularly regarding the timelines for pursuing foreclosure actions.
U.S. Bank filed the foreclosure action against Nektalov and other defendants in 2013, seeking to reclaim property in Queens, New York. Nektalov did not respond to the initial complaint, leading U.S. Bank to request a judicial intervention to facilitate a foreclosure settlement conference. However, by June 2014, when U.S. Bank sought summary judgment regarding the case, the court denied that motion. This back-and-forth continued until April 2022, when Nektalov filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming it had been abandoned.
The Supreme Court granted Nektalov's motion in August 2024, leading U.S. Bank to appeal. The central issue was whether U.S. Bank had taken sufficient action within the required timeline to avoid the dismissal of its complaint under New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3215(c), which states that a complaint can be dismissed as abandoned if no action is taken within one year after a defendant's default.
The court ruled that U.S. Bank did take appropriate steps to pursue the case. The justices noted, "It is enough that the plaintiff timely takes the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference to establish that it initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default for the purposes of satisfying CPLR 3215(c)." This means that U.S. Bank's actions in 2014 were sufficient to demonstrate its intent to continue pursuing the case.
Judges Francesca E. Connolly, Linda Christopher, Barry E. Warhit, and Donna-Marie E. Golia formed the panel that issued the ruling. They emphasized that the timeline for dismissal under CPLR 3215(c) can be tolled if a case is subject to mandatory settlement conferences, which was applicable in this situation.
The ruling has significant implications for mortgage foreclosure actions in New York. It reinforces that a plaintiff must show intent to pursue a case, even if a motion for summary judgment is denied. This decision clarifies that as long as some action is taken, it can prevent a case from being dismissed as abandoned.
Moving forward, this ruling may encourage banks and financial institutions to continue pursuing foreclosure actions more vigorously, knowing that their preliminary steps can protect them from dismissal. It also serves as a reminder to defendants in foreclosure cases about the importance of responding promptly and understanding the implications of default.
As for the future of this case, it remains to be seen whether Nektalov will pursue any further legal action following the reversal. The court's decision does not preclude him from continuing to contest the foreclosure, and U.S. Bank will likely proceed with its efforts to finalize the foreclosure process.
The court filing did not provide additional details on potential appeals or related cases, but the ruling sets a clear precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.