A New York bank has failed in its attempt to restart a home foreclosure case after allowing it to remain inactive for more than six years. The bank had started legal proceedings against a married couple over their home in Sullivan County, New York, but missed a deadline set by the court in 2017. The case was eventually dismissed in 2019.Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas had approached the court after an alleged default on a loan taken by David A. Leis. The loan was secured by a mortgage on a residential property signed by Leis and his wife, Marie Leis.According to the ruling, as part of the foreclosure proceedings, the court directed the bank in March 2017 to file a required application by December 31 that year. It also warned the bank that the case could be removed from the court calendar if it missed the deadline. If the bank did not take steps to bring the case back within a year, it could be dismissed.The bank failed to submit the application on time. In January 2018, the court informed it that the case had been removed from the calendar. The bank then missed another opportunity to act. It did not ask the court to restart the case within the next year.As a result, the court dismissed the foreclosure case on January 7, 2019. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the court did not rule on the merits of the bank’s foreclosure claim.However, the bank did not approach the court again until February 2025. It asked for the dismissal to be cancelled and the case to be restored to the active list. The court rejected the request in April 2025, prompting the bank to appeal.On Thursday, the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld that decision. The judges said the bank had not given a convincing explanation for failing to meet the deadline or for waiting more than six years to challenge the dismissal.
Bank could not explain why it missed deadlines
The appellate court noted that the bank had been clearly warned about what would happen if it failed to meet the December 2017 deadline. Despite this, it neither filed the required application nor asked the court for more time.The bank also failed to act after receiving the January 2018 notice that the case had been removed from the calendar. It then allowed the matter to remain inactive until February 2025 before asking the court to reopen it.The judges said the bank had not provided an affidavit from its lawyer or any other person with direct knowledge of the case. Such a statement could have explained why the deadline was missed, why the bank did not respond to the court’s notice and why it took so long to seek the restoration of the case.The bank referred to earlier court decisions in which mistakes made by lawyers or their offices had been accepted as reasons for missing deadlines. However, the judges said the bank had not identified any such mistake.It did not point to a specific error in recording the deadline, a communication problem within the law office or any other incident that could explain its failure to act. It also gave no reason for waiting more than six years to challenge the dismissal.
Court rejects bank’s other arguments
The bank also argued that the couple had not filed a notice of entry for the 2019 dismissal order. It suggested that this was relevant to the delay in seeking to reopen the case.The appellate court disagreed. It said the notice of entry affected the time available to file a request to cancel the dismissal. However, it did not explain why the bank had failed to follow the court’s earlier directions or provide a reasonable reason for its prolonged inaction.The judges said the lower court was justified in rejecting the bank’s request because it had failed to explain its conduct.They also said there was no need to examine whether the bank had a valid foreclosure claim. Before considering that question, the bank first had to explain why it had missed the deadlines. Since it failed to do so, the court did not need to examine the strength of its original case.The bank further argued that the lower court should have used its authority to reopen the matter in the interest of justice. The appellate judges examined this argument along with its other remaining claims but found them unconvincing.