We are excited to share a recent decision on case handled by Friedman Vartolo, LLP. In U.S. Bank National Association v. Gregory A. Jeffrey, et al, 2019-02039 AD3d, granted April 14, 2021, defendants appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, dated September 17, 2018. The order, granted that branch of the plaintiff`s motion which was to strike the affirmative defense of those defendants alleging violations of the Banking Law and denied the cross motion of those defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Appellate Division that the order was affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Court found that Defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff did not comply with RPAPL 1304 and 1306, or that the defendants were not in default on the mortgage loan, as they merely pointed to deficiencies in the plaintiff`s evidence. Court properly denied the defendants` cross motion for summary judgment.
The Appellate Court found that the Supreme Court properly determined that Banking Law § 6-l was inapplicable. “Banking Law § 6-l ‘imposes limitations and prohibits certain practices for high-cost home loans’”. The statute had an exception for loans that were above the conforming loan amount. The subject loan exceeded the statutory amount of $300,000. Thus, the Banking Law regarding high cost home loans was inapplicable. Further, the statute applied to loans originated after September 2008. The loan originated in 2007. Further, the defendants failed to establish that plaintiff did not comply with RPAPL 1304 and 1306. Defendants merely pointed to deficiencies in evidence without providing evidence that the loan was not in default or that the RPAPL was not complied with.
Great work by Richard O’Brien, Esq. and Oran Schwager, Esq. of our firm! For more information on this decision please contact Director of Operations, Deborah Gallo, Esq. at email@example.com.