New York set a 90-day notice before condo foreclosures. It set no dollar floor.

Governor Hochul signed S7413 on October 16, 2025, amending Real Property Law §339-aa and adding RPAPL §20-A. The law requires condominium boards and incorporated homeowners' associations to give written notice at least 90 days before commencing a foreclosure action on a common charge lien. It borrows the procedural design of RPAPL §1304, the 90-day mortgage foreclosure notice statute. It does not set a minimum arrears amount below which foreclosure is barred, require a payment plan offer, or create a post-sale redemption right.

What New York changed in October 2025.

Before S7413, Real Property Law §339-aa permitted a condo board to foreclose a common charge lien "in like manner as a mortgage of real property" with no statutory notice to the unit owner before the action was filed. The legislature's amendment requires the board to send written notice to the unit owner at least 90 days before filing the foreclosure action. The law applies to all actions commenced on or after October 16, 2025.

The companion amendment added RPAPL §20-A, which imposes the same requirement on incorporated homeowners' associations. Both provisions mirror the structure of RPAPL §1304, which has required lenders to give 90-day pre-commencement notice in residential mortgage cases since 2008. The legislature's reasoning tracked the mortgage analogy: give owners time to cure a delinquency or find assistance before the formal litigation clock starts.

S7413 also changed the procedural foundation for condo lien foreclosures. Before the amendment, boards foreclosed under the general mortgage framework. After it, foreclosures must proceed under Article 13 of the RPAPL, the same statutory article that governs residential mortgage foreclosures. That change brings condo lien actions into the full set of mortgage foreclosure procedural requirements, not just the 90-day notice.

What the notice must say.

The statute requires three specific elements: a statement of the board's intent to foreclose, the address of the unit in arrears, and the exact dollar amount owed. The last element has practical weight. It forces the board to compute and disclose the specific sum before the action begins, which locks in the stated figure and creates a record against which future pleadings will be measured.

The notice must be sent to the property address and to any other address of record the board has on file for the unit owner. It must be printed in at least 14-point type. A defective notice can be raised as a defense and may result in dismissal of the foreclosure action. Law firms practicing in this area have flagged the most common failure modes: sending the notice at the wrong point in the lien timeline, omitting a documented alternate address, or stating an inaccurate arrears figure. Boards that have not maintained rigorous contact records are in a more exposed legal position after S7413 than before it.

What the notice does not require.

The 90-day notice is a procedural requirement. A condo board can send a compliant notice over $200 in arrears, wait 91 days, and commence the foreclosure action. Nothing in S7413 changes that. The board is not required to offer a payment plan during the notice period, refer the matter to mediation, provide the owner a right of redemption after any sale, or seek approval from a state agency before filing. Late charges and interest continue to accrue during the 90 days, and the board may factor those additions into an updated complaint when it files.

The contrast with the Arizona reform is precise. Arizona changed the substance of what a board can do: it created a dollar threshold that bars the foreclosure action altogether below a set amount, and a procedural requirement to offer a payment plan before suing. New York changed the timing of what a board must do before acting. A board in Arizona that wanted to foreclose over $977 in unpaid dues would now be barred by statute. A board in New York that wants to foreclose over $977 in unpaid dues can send the compliant notice and file on day 91.

Why the distinction between procedure and substance matters.

The two types of protection address different failure modes. A procedural notice addresses the case where the owner did not know foreclosure was coming. By requiring the board to state the exact amount in writing 90 days in advance, the law creates an opportunity to cure a small arrears before the litigation clock starts. That is a genuine benefit. The legislature was right to model it on the mortgage framework.

A substantive dollar floor addresses a different problem: the case where the owner is aware of the arrears, cannot or chooses not to pay, and the amount at issue is small enough that foreclosure is a grossly disproportionate result. The Arizona house in Mesa was not a case of an owner who was surprised. The board sent notice. The owner did not pay. The board proceeded. The outcome — a $449,328 property sold at a sheriff's sale for $8,172 — followed every procedural step then required. Arizona decided that outcome should be impossible below a threshold. New York has not.

The absence of a statutory floor does not mean New York judges have no discretion. A court may find that foreclosure over a very small sum is unconscionable or that equitable defenses apply. But that result is not guaranteed, and it depends on the owner having representation and the case reaching a judge before a default is entered. Statutory floors protect every owner in every case, including the many that settle under pressure or proceed through default. Judicial discretion protects owners who have lawyers and judges who are moved to act on specific facts.

The ambiguities practitioners are working through.

S7413 has been in effect for eleven months, and several questions remain unresolved because no appellate decision has addressed them yet.

The first is timing. Real Property Law §339-z creates the common charge lien automatically when the owner defaults. The lien arises by operation of law without recording. S7413 does not specify whether the 90-day period is measured from the date the lien arises under §339-z, from the date the board sends the notice, or from the date the lien is recorded. Herrick, Feinstein LLP and Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. have each noted the statutory silence on this point. Until a court resolves the question, the trigger date remains uncertain, and owners have a potential timing defense if the board sent the notice before the lien had fully matured under the statute.

The second is address compliance. If the board has a documented alternate address on file for the unit owner and fails to send the notice there, the foreclosure action may be subject to dismissal. Boards that have collected alternate addresses from mortgage servicers, proprietary lease records, or prior correspondence are now required to use them. Boards that have not kept those records have a structural compliance gap.

The third is amount accuracy. The notice must state the exact amount due. Charges continue to accrue during the 90 days. If the complaint filed on day 91 seeks an amount materially different from the notice figure, whether because of accrued interest or added late fees, the adequacy of the original notice has not been tested by any published New York decision.

What was not in S7413.

The legislature did not include any of the following in S7413: a minimum dollar amount below which condo lien foreclosure is barred; a requirement that the board offer a payment plan before commencing the action; a mediation referral requirement; a post-sale redemption period; an independent review by any state agency before the action is filed; or an ombudsman with authority to intervene in a pending matter.

S7745, the New York condo ombudsperson bill, would have authorized a state office to receive and investigate owner complaints, including those related to foreclosure decisions. The bill received no floor vote before Albany adjourned June 5, 2026. New York has no equivalent to the ombudsman offices that exist in Virginia, Maryland, and other states where condo and HOA owners can bring governance complaints without filing a lawsuit.

The New York State Bar Association's recent report identifying regulatory challenges for condos and co-ops notes that enforcement of common charge obligations lacks the consumer protection framework applied to residential mortgages. S7413 brought the procedure closer to the mortgage model. The protections that prevent mortgage foreclosure over small balances, set by federal lending standards and state homestead law, have no statutory equivalent in New York's common charge framework.

Bottom line.

New York enacted a real procedural improvement in October 2025. The 90-day notice forces boards to disclose the exact amount, gives owners a window to act, and subjects condo lien foreclosures to the same procedural framework as residential mortgage foreclosures. Those are genuine changes. They are not a dollar floor. A New York condo board can send a valid 90-day notice over $200 in arrears and file on day 91. An Arizona HOA board cannot foreclose over the same amount because state law bars the action. The gap that existed before S7413 was signed is procedurally narrower now. It is substantively unchanged.

Primary sources: NY S7413 (2025) · Adam Leitman Bailey analysis of RPL §339-aa amendment · Rosenberg Estis analysis · Herrick Feinstein analysis · Braverman Greenspun analysis · Smith Buss & Jacobs analysis

Companion resources: An Arizona HOA took a house over $977 in dues. New York's rules are thinner. · HOA reserve failures nationwide, no mandate in New York · S7745: the condo ombudsperson bill · Why the AG cannot help with condo governance