"Pro Se" Homeowner Fails To Prove Violations Of NYS Anti-Predatory Lending Statute; Trial Court Gives Foreclosure Sale Go-Ahead

In Nassau County, Long Island, The New York Law Journal reports (reported at law.com):

• Declining to halt a foreclosure sale, a Long Island, N.Y., judge has been left with the "unhappy result" of a loan that should not have been taken for which the homeowner is nevertheless responsible. The case of Alliance v. Dobkin, 10625/06, is illustrative of the nationwide mortgage lending crisis: An increasing number of borrowers who agreed to onerous loan terms to finance homes they could not otherwise afford now are facing foreclosure. [... Nassau County Justice Daniel R. Palmieri] ruled that Dobkin could not rely on the state's prohibition against predatory lending to forestall foreclosure of her home.

***

• In her court papers, Dobkin, who represented herself, relied exclusively on LaSalle Bank, N.A. v Shearon, 100255/07, a Staten Island case where a judge found the lender guilty of multiple violations of the state's anti-predatory lending laws. [...] The only difference between that case and hers, argued Dobkin in court documents, was that her situation was "more outrageous."

***

• John Cilmi, whose Manhattan firm, Cilmi & Associates, represented the plaintiffs in the Shearon case, said in an interview that the decision was "concise and well-reasoned" under the applicable statutes. However, utilizing only the statutes can paint an incomplete picture, said Cilmi, who was not involved in the Dobkin matter. "When you review the statute, even if a home loan does not fall under it due to the dollar amount involved, that does not mean that there is not potential fraud involved in other aspects of the lending process."

For more, see N.Y. Judge Finds Homeowner Liable for Loan (Homeowner relied on 'LaSalle Bank v. Shearon,' thought to be the first reported decision enforcing provisions of the Banking Law).

Go here other posts referencing the LaSalle Bank v. Shearon NYS predatory lending case.

Editorial Note:

Not having the benefit of legal counsel, Ms. Dobkin represented herself in this case.