The opinion
MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Lila
2026 NY Slip Op 30770(U)
February 27, 2026
Supreme Court, Kings County
Docket Number: Index No. 520676/2018
Judge: Carolyn Walker-Diallo
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.5206762018.KINGS.001.LBLX000_TO.html[03/12/2026 3:45:52 PM]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 02:04 PM INDEX NO. 520676/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026
At an IAS Term, Part FRP4, of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York,
held in and for the County of Kings, at
the Courthouse at 320 Jay Street,
Brooklyn, New York on the 27th day of
February 2026.
PRESENT:
HON. CAROLYN WALKER-DIALLO, J.S.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P.,
Plaintiff, Index No.: 520676/2018
- against -
DECISION/ORDER
KEVIN LILA, et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion:
Papers Numbered
Notice of Motion, Affirmation, and Exhibits NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 95-108
Affirmation in Opposition NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 109-115
Affirmation in Reply NYSCEF Doc. No. 117
Motion Sequence #3
Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order on this Motion is as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Kevin Lila and Pacific Enterprise, LLC (“Defendants”) move for an order: (1) granting
summary judgment and dismissing the instant action as barred by the statute of limitations pursuant
1
1 of 4
[* 1]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 02:04 PM INDEX NO. 520676/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026
to CPLR 3212; and (2) granting Defendants’ counterclaims and discharging Plaintiff’s mortgage
against the subject premises at 1419 Park Place, Brooklyn, New York pursuant to RPAPL 1501
(4). Plaintiff opposes, and Defendants submit reply papers.
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The instant foreclosure action was commenced on October 15, 2018. A previous action
seeking to foreclose the same mortgage was commenced on August 6, 2009, by Plaintiff’s
predecessor-in-interest under Index Number 19876/2009, entitled Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams.
v. Lila (“first action”). The complaint in that action accelerated all sums due under the mortgage.
Thereafter, on May 8, 2017, the first action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). A second
action (“second action”) was filed on June 1, 2012, by Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest under
Index Number 11392/2012, entitled Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Lila. The second action was
voluntarily discontinued on March 16, 2015.
Plaintiff previously moved for summary judgment and Defendants cross-moved for the
same relief in this action, seeking to dismiss the action and discharge the mortgage pursuant to
RPAPL 1501 (4) as barred by statute of limitations. The court denied Plaintiff’s motion and granted
Defendants’ cross-motion by order entered May 12, 2022. See Order of the Honorable Cenceria P.
Edwards entered May 12, 2022, NYSCEF Doc. No. 89. Thereafter, on April 17, 2024, the
Appellate Division, Second Department, held that while Defendants had demonstrated prima facie
that FAPA was applicable and the statute of limitations had expired, Plaintiff’s challenge as to the
constitutionality of FAPA warranted remanding the matter back to the Court for consideration. See
Order of the Appellate Division dated April 17, 2024, NYSCEF Doc. No. 94. The instant motion
follows. During the pendency of this motion, the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of
the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (“FAPA”) and its retroactive application in its landmark
2
2 of 4
[* 2]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 02:04 PM INDEX NO. 520676/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026
decisions Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank, 2025 NY Slip Op 06536 and Van Dyke v.
U.S. Bank, N.A., 2025 NY Slip Op 06537, rendering this consideration moot. For the foregoing
reasons, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION
“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the
absence of any material issues of fact. Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial
of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers. Once this showing has been
made, however, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to
produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues
of fact which require a trial of the action.” Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 (1986)
(internal citations omitted). An action to foreclosure a mortgage must be commenced within six
years. CPLR 213 (4). “[E]ven if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is
accelerated, the entire amount is due and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt.
Acceleration occurs, inter alia, by the commencement of a foreclosure action.” Deutsche Bank
Natl. Trust Co. v. Adrian, 157 A.D.3d 934, 935 (2d Dep’t 2018) (Internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Here, the first action in 2009 expressly accelerated the mortgage loan and demanded full
payment of all sums secured by the mortgage. This action was later dismissed. The second action
was discontinued. Defendants have established their prima facie entitlement to judgment on
account of enforcement of the mortgage being time-barred, which was upheld by the Appellate
Division on April 17, 2024. See Order of the Appellate Division dated April 17, 2024, NYSCEF
Doc. No. 94. Plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, as its arguments
3
3 of 4
[* 3]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2026 02:04 PM INDEX NO. 520676/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 126 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2026
regarding FAPA’s constitutionality have been resolved by the Court of Appeals in the recently
issued decisions Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Bank, 2025 NY Slip Op 06536 and Van
Dyke v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2025 NY Slip Op 06537. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment in this matter.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this action is
DISMISSED with prejudice. The subject mortgage is discharged pursuant to RPAPL 1501 (4),
accompanying order to follow. The Court has considered the additional contentions of the parties
not specifically addressed herein. Defendants shall serve notice of entry of these orders within ten
(10) days of upload of the instant orders to NYSCEF upon Plaintiff, Defendants, and all parties
who have appeared in this action.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
ENTER:
____________________________
Hon. Carolyn Walker-Diallo, J.S.C.
4
4 of 4
[* 4]