In a significant ruling for mortgage foreclosure cases, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has reversed a lower court's decision against Thomas Zientek. This ruling, issued on July 22, 2026, affects how mortgage lenders can pursue foreclosure actions, especially regarding the submission of evidence and compliance with legal requirements.
The case, U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Zientek (Docket No. 2024-08632), began in 2012 when U.S. Bank, National Association, filed a foreclosure action against Zientek concerning a mortgage on real property in Suffolk County. The dispute centers around whether the bank properly followed the required legal procedures before moving forward with foreclosure. This ruling is important because it emphasizes the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in foreclosure cases, which can impact homeowners facing foreclosure.
The legal battle began when U.S. Bank sought to foreclose on Zientek's property. The bank claimed that Zientek defaulted on his mortgage payments. In 2018, the Supreme Court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment, allowing the foreclosure to proceed. However, Zientek appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's ruling, stating that U.S. Bank failed to demonstrate compliance with the 90-day notice requirement outlined in New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304.
After the initial appeal, U.S. Bank made a second attempt in October 2023 to obtain summary judgment against Zientek. This time, the bank provided an affidavit from a document execution associate at Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, which is the bank's loan servicer. The affidavit claimed that the bank had complied with the RPAPL 1304 requirements. Zientek responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the bank's second attempt should not be allowed because it did not present any new evidence.
On June 4, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of U.S. Bank, granting its motion for summary judgment and allowing the foreclosure to proceed. Zientek then appealed this decision, leading to the latest ruling by the Appellate Division.
The court ruled that U.S. Bank's second motion for summary judgment was improper because it did not present newly discovered evidence that could not have been included in the first motion. The judges noted, "The Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant and for an order of reference as an improper successive motion for summary judgment." This ruling underscores the importance of presenting all relevant evidence in initial motions and not relying on subsequent motions without new information.
The judges involved in this ruling were Colleen D. Duffy, Paul Wooten, Carl J. Landicino, and Susan Quirk. Their decision modifies the lower court's order, denying the bank's motion for summary judgment and the order of reference, which would have allowed the bank to proceed with foreclosure.
This ruling has significant implications for future foreclosure cases in New York. It reinforces the necessity for lenders to comply with legal requirements and present all relevant evidence in their initial motions. Homeowners facing foreclosure may find some relief in knowing that courts are scrutinizing lenders' compliance with procedural rules. This ruling could encourage more homeowners to challenge foreclosure actions if they believe lenders have not followed the proper legal processes.
As for what lies ahead, U.S. Bank may consider appealing this decision to a higher court. However, details on whether an appeal will be filed were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence similar cases involving mortgage foreclosures, especially those that involve procedural compliance and the handling of subsequent motions.