I do not believe that NY has a "wrongful foreclosure" defense per se; however, if the bank has commenced a wrongful foreclosure in a New York court, then you will need to give specifics as to why you believe the foreclosure is wrongful. The facts supporting a wrongful foreclosure are case sensitive. For example, if the bank knowingly or negligently claimed to be the owner of the mortgage when it really wasn't, then one could assert that the bank's actions are wrongful and unconscionable; this defense must be raised or it will be lost. This would not only be a defense but could serve additionally as a counterclaim which would serve as a basis for damages. But again, they must be raised in the answer or be lost. There are some exceptions to this general rule, like if you could not have learned of the bank's wrongful conduct at the time the answer was due. In such cases, you would have to raise the defense and or counterclaim via motion soon after you discovered the wrongful conduct.
BTW, defenses that are not waived in New York even though not raised in the answer are: the defense asserting that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, failure to name a necessary party defendant, the defense that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and RPAPL 1303/1304 notice requirements---these defenses even though not raised in the formal answer can still be raised later in the litigation, but generally must be raised before judgment with the exception of the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction defense, which defense can be raised anytime even after judgment. In the above example, even if the defense of standing was not timely raised in the answer, one may still be able to argue later in the litigation that the bank's complaint fails to state a cause of action based on the fact that the bank's cause of action cannot be satisfied if it is not the holder of the subject note and mortgage.
BTW, defenses that are not waived in New York even though not raised in the answer are: the defense asserting that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, failure to name a necessary party defendant, the defense that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and RPAPL 1303/1304 notice requirements---these defenses even though not raised in the formal answer can still be raised later in the litigation, but generally must be raised before judgment with the exception of the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction defense, which defense can be raised anytime even after judgment. In the above example, even if the defense of standing was not timely raised in the answer, one may still be able to argue later in the litigation that the bank's complaint fails to state a cause of action based on the fact that the bank's cause of action cannot be satisfied if it is not the holder of the subject note and mortgage.
RSS Feed