In a significant ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has upheld a lower court's decision in the case of U.S. Bank N.A. v. Cohen. This ruling, issued on August 12, 2026, affects homeowners like Liat Cohen, who are embroiled in mortgage foreclosure disputes. The court's decision underscores the importance of proper legal procedures in foreclosure cases and sets a precedent for similar future cases.
The case began when U.S. Bank National Association filed a lawsuit against Liat Cohen and others to foreclose a mortgage on a residential property in Brooklyn. The bank initiated the action on June 12, 2015, amid claims that Cohen had defaulted on her mortgage payments. Cohen responded to the lawsuit by filing an answer that included several defenses, including a lack of standing by the bank to pursue the foreclosure.
The dispute escalated as the case moved through the courts. In March 2018, the Supreme Court granted U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss Cohen's counterclaims while denying her request for summary judgment to dismiss the bank's complaint. After further proceedings, U.S. Bank filed another motion seeking summary judgment against Cohen, which included a request to strike her answer and for an order of reference to proceed with the foreclosure.
On October 3, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of U.S. Bank, granting their motion for summary judgment against Cohen. Cohen subsequently appealed the decision. The Appellate Division reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's ruling, stating that Cohen did not provide a sufficient basis to overturn the decision. The court remarked, "The defendant fails to articulate a meritorious basis to disturb the Supreme Court's determination to grant those branches of the plaintiff's motion." This affirmation means that U.S. Bank can continue its efforts to foreclose on Cohen's property.
In its decision, the court emphasized that U.S. Bank had properly established its standing to initiate the foreclosure. The opinion noted that an affidavit from an employee of the bank's loan servicer provided a valid foundation for admitting business records related to the case. The court stated, "Moreover, the presence in the record of an unendorsed version of the consolidated note did not raise a triable issue of fact as the plaintiff's standing at the time of commencement of the action." This aspect of the ruling clarifies the requirements for banks to prove their standing in foreclosure cases.
The court also addressed Cohen's arguments regarding compliance with specific legal statutes related to foreclosure proceedings. It found that U.S. Bank had demonstrated compliance with the relevant laws and that Cohen's claims regarding the bank's failure to meet these requirements were improperly raised for the first time on appeal. The ruling concluded that Cohen did not raise any triable issues of fact that could have affected the outcome of the case.
This ruling has significant implications for homeowners facing foreclosure. It reinforces the idea that banks must follow proper legal protocols when pursuing foreclosure actions. At the same time, it highlights the challenges homeowners may face when contesting such actions, especially if they do not raise all relevant defenses in a timely manner. The court's decision could serve as a reference point for similar cases in New York and beyond, potentially influencing future foreclosure litigation.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for how courts handle mortgage foreclosure cases, particularly in regard to the standing of lenders and the procedural requirements they must meet. Homeowners like Cohen, who find themselves in similar situations, may need to be more vigilant in presenting their defenses and ensuring they comply with all legal requirements to contest foreclosure actions effectively.
As for what lies ahead for Cohen, she may have limited options for appealing the court's decision. The Appellate Division's ruling is typically considered final unless there are grounds for further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or further actions Cohen may take.