A New York appellate court recently upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a case involving Mildred J. Michalczyk and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. The court ruled on August 5, 2026, affirming that Michalczyk's claims against HSBC were without merit. This decision affects Michalczyk's attempts to recover damages related to her mortgage and home equity line of credit.

The case, Michalczyk v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., was filed under docket number 2021-00165. Michalczyk, who represented herself in court, appealed an order from the Supreme Court of Suffolk County, which had granted HSBC's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court's ruling is significant as it clarifies the legal standards for breach of contract and debt collection practices in New York.

Background

Mildred J. Michalczyk took out a mortgage with HSBC Mortgage Corporation in July 2005, securing it with a mortgage on her residential property in East Farmingdale, New York. In May 2007, she also executed a home equity line of credit agreement, which was secured by a second mortgage on the same property. In 2013, HSBC Bank USA, N.A. acquired both loans.

In 2014, HSBC initiated a foreclosure action against Michalczyk concerning the home equity line of credit. Michalczyk responded with an answer and various counterclaims. Later, HSBC sought summary judgment to dismiss her claims, which led to a court ruling in December 2017 that favored HSBC. Michalczyk's legal battles continued with another foreclosure action initiated by HSBC in June 2015. She filed counterclaims and sought to sever them from the main action, which the court allowed.

The Ruling

In its recent decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed the lower court's ruling that dismissed Michalczyk's claims against HSBC. The court found that Michalczyk failed to provide specific evidence supporting her allegations of breach of contract. The ruling stated, "HSBC established, prima facie, that Michalczyk's allegations failed to identify any specific contractual provision that allegedly was breached." Michalczyk's arguments regarding the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were also rejected, as the court found no evidence of improper conduct by HSBC.

The court further ruled that Michalczyk's claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Federal Truth in Lending Act were time-barred. The judges, including Betsy Barros, Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Barry E. Warhit, and Elena Goldberg Velazquez, concurred with the decision, emphasizing that Michalczyk did not raise any triable issues of fact in her opposition to HSBC's motion.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals facing similar situations in mortgage and debt collection disputes. It reinforces the importance of providing specific evidence when claiming a breach of contract. The court's decision also clarifies the definitions of a