Case Results

A client came to Tom after spending nearly four years stuck in a Nassau County foreclosure action with no clear path forward. While reviewing the file, Tom asked about the individual the bank's process server claimed to have served on the client's behalf — a procedural detail most attorneys gloss over.

In New York, substituted service permits a lender to serve a defendant by delivering process to a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the property. The name on the affidavit of service belonged to the client's uncle. When Tom asked whether he could speak with the uncle, the client explained that his uncle had died ten years before the alleged service was made.

Service on a deceased person is not only legally impossible — it raises serious questions about the sworn affidavit submitted by the process server. Tom contacted the bank with the discrepancy. After conducting its own internal review, the bank agreed to voluntarily withdraw the foreclosure action.

Under ordinary circumstances, the lender would simply have refiled. But the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), signed into law in December 2022, dramatically tightened the statute of limitations on refiling stale foreclosure actions in New York. The lender no longer had a clean path back to court — and they knew it.

“The client walked away from a four-year foreclosure with his home and over $2 million in instant equity that did not exist before Tom took the case.”

With FAPA's restrictions creating real leverage, Tom negotiated a payoff settlement on a $2.7 million loan balance. The final figure: $600,000. The client walked away from a four-year foreclosure with his home and over $2 million in instant equity that did not exist before Tom took the case.

This result was not produced by luck. It was produced by reading the file line by line, asking the right question at the right moment, and understanding exactly which New York statutes and recent legislative changes turned a procedural detail into decisive leverage.

Tom represented an elderly client facing eviction under a stipulation of settlement that expressly barred her from filing an Order to Show Cause to stay the eviction itself. On its face, the stipulation appeared to foreclose any procedural challenge.

Reading the stipulation carefully, Tom recognized that the restriction applied only to challenges based on the eviction proceeding — not to applications grounded in independent circumstances. The client was in her late seventies and suffered from serious health conditions that made an immediate move dangerous to her wellbeing.

Tom filed an Order to Show Cause based on the client's health, a basis the stipulation did not foreclose. The judge signed the order, granting a stay of the eviction and giving the client the additional time she needed to secure funds and relocate safely.

“Tom found the door the stipulation had not closed.”

Most attorneys reading the same stipulation would have stopped at the first sentence. Tom found the door the stipulation had not closed.

Tom secured a loan modification for a client on a non-owner-occupied rental property in New York. Lenders generally limit modifications to a borrower’s primary residence and require a full financial documentation package. Here the lender knew the property was an investment rental, and the modification was obtained without the client submitting the standard financials.

The obstacle was real. Most servicers will not even open a review file on a rental, and when they do, they ask for tax returns, profit and loss statements, rent rolls, leases, and a hardship affidavit before they consider any restructure. The client did not submit that package.

Tom worked the file directly with the lender, framed the loan and the property in a way that gave the servicer a reason to keep the loan performing rather than push it through foreclosure, and pressed until the modification was issued and signed.

“Lenders almost never modify a rental. This one did, and without the usual financial package.”

Lenders almost never modify a rental. This one did, and without the usual financial package.

Why this matters: a borrower with a New York investment property who has been told a modification is impossible has not necessarily been told the whole story. Modifications on rentals are uncommon and difficult, but the right approach to the right file can still produce one. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is different.

A client was in foreclosure on a home that was underwater, owing more than the property was worth. The matter was already in active litigation when Tom filed a notice of appeal to challenge a court decision. After the appeal was filed, the lender reevaluated its position. The result was a loan modification that included a principal reduction, moving the client from negative equity to positive equity with a lower monthly payment.

The case started in a difficult posture: the borrower owed more than the home's market value, and a court ruling had gone against the borrower. Rather than treat the ruling as the end of the road, Tom appealed. The notice of appeal signaled that the lender would face continued litigation and potential delay. That changed the lender's calculus.

Once the appeal was on file, the lender became willing to negotiate. The parties reached an agreement that did more than temporarily modify the loan. The modification included a principal reduction that brought the debt below the property's value. The client went from facing foreclosure and negative equity to retaining the home with a lower balance and a manageable payment.

“Filing the notice of appeal changed the conversation. The lender went from insisting on the full balance to negotiating a modification that erased the negative equity.”

Why this matters: In foreclosure litigation, continuing to press the case, including through an appeal, can sometimes shift a lender's willingness to settle. Lenders weigh the cost and uncertainty of further litigation against the benefit of a negotiated resolution. That does not mean every appeal produces a principal reduction. It does mean that giving up too early can remove the leverage that makes a better deal possible. Every case turns on its own facts, its own timeline, and the specific lender involved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is different. If you are in foreclosure and want to discuss your options, Thomas A. Sirianni, Esq. answers his own phone. Call (516) 314-1343 or visit thomassirianniesq.com. The office is located at 1 Pine Valley Road, Upper Brookville, NY in Nassau County.

This matter is ongoing. A client borrowed roughly $1 million. After falling into foreclosure, the balance the lender claimed grew to approximately $1.95 million over years of litigation. Through sustained litigation and winning certain motions, the lender has currently agreed to accept approximately $1.25 million, a reduction of roughly $700,000 from the amount claimed owed. Negotiations are not concluded and the figures may change.

The original loan was around $1 million. The client fell behind, the lender filed, and the balance kept building inside the foreclosure as interest, fees, and costs accrued through years of litigation. By the time the case had been actively contested for an extended period, the lender was claiming roughly $1.95 million.

Tom litigated the file rather than letting it move on the lender’s schedule. Motions were filed, certain motions were won, and the procedural posture of the case shifted. With each ruling that did not go the lender’s way, the cost and risk of continuing to push the foreclosure went up for the lender, and the value of settling went up with it.

“Years of litigation and winning the right motions changed what the lender was willing to accept.”

Where the matter stands today: the lender has currently agreed to accept approximately $1.25 million, roughly $700,000 less than the amount it was claiming. That number is the current posture in active negotiation. It is not signed, not closed, and not final. It can move in either direction before the matter resolves.

Why this matters: a foreclosure balance is not a fixed number a borrower has to accept. Sustained litigation, and winning the right motions along the way, can change a lender’s calculation about what it is willing to take to close the file. That is what is happening here. It does not promise the same path for any other case.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is different. This matter is ongoing and the figures described reflect its current status, which may change.