Mongiello v. HSBC Bank USA NA
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-02291
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Mongiello v. HSBC Bank, Judge Karas denied emergency relief because Mongiello’s mortgage-discharge claim had already been dismissed with prejudice.
Christopher M. Mongiello was denied permission to obtain emergency relief allowing the property sale to proceed under the requested conditions. HSBC Bank USA NA and the other defendants were not required by this order to release the lien or accept escrowed proceeds.
What happened
Christopher M. Mongiello asked the court to let him complete a pending property sale despite HSBC Bank USA NA’s claimed mortgage lien. He asked the court to require a lien release or otherwise prevent interference with closing.
Mongiello also asked that $447,171.34 in disputed sale proceeds be placed in a blocked escrow account or the court’s registry until the case was resolved. He argued that the mortgage was time-barred and that he could face incarceration if the sale did not close.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Mongiello’s request for emergency relief and for briefing on the request. Judge Karas explained that the court had already dismissed Mongiello’s claim to discharge the mortgage with prejudice, so Mongiello could not show a likelihood of success based on that claim.
The detailed version
- Mongiello v. HSBC Bank USA NA · No. 7:24-cv-02291
- Kenneth Karas
- Oct. 17, 2025
Background
Christopher M. Mongiello requested emergency court intervention to allow a scheduled sale of real property to close. He asked the court to temporarily restrain HSBC Bank USA NA and the other defendants from interfering with the closing, require a mortgage-lien release or equivalent accommodation, and direct that $447,171.34 in disputed proceeds be deposited into a blocked escrow account or the court’s registry.
Mongiello argued that the mortgage lien was time-barred under New York law and that the assignments supporting the lien were invalid. He also asserted that the failure to close could lead to a six-month incarceration order in state-court contempt proceedings. These were Mongiello’s arguments; the court did not decide their underlying merits in this order.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the standards for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Those standards require a showing that includes a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions for litigation, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest.
The court focused on the likelihood-of-success requirement. It stated that it had already dismissed Mongiello’s claim under New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1501(4), which sought discharge of the mortgage, with prejudice in an earlier round of this case. Because that claim had already been dismissed with prejudice, the court concluded that Mongiello could not establish a likelihood of success based on it. The court also stated that Mongiello did not justify emergency relief by relying on another asserted cause of action.
Disposition
The court denied Mongiello’s request for a temporary restraining order and denied his request that the court order briefing on the emergency relief. The order did not adjudicate the validity or priority of the mortgage, note, or assignments in this proceeding. The opinion text does not state a separate ruling on the requested preliminary-injunction hearing beyond denying the request for briefing and the temporary restraining order.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.