Bank of New York Mellon (BNY) commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against mortgagor Izmirligil, who defaulted in making monthly payments. Now BNY sought a declaration that certain attorney affirmation requirements imposed upon counsel for foreclosing plaintiffs by Administrative Orders (AO) promulgated by the Chief Administrative Judge were unconstitutional and impermissibly required counsel to violate attorney/client privilege. The court noted while counsel's compliance with the AO has been held to be mandatory, the affirmation itself was held to be non-substantive in nature and its contents free from challenges by adverse parties. Further, it noted in LaSalle Bank v. Pace, this court held the AO and 22 NYCRR 2020.12-a(f) were ultra vires as the Chief Administrative Judge exceeded her statutory and delegated powers to regulate practice in the courts and invaded the province of the legislature. Thus, the court found no reason to alter or disturb its prior holding as to the invalidity of the affirmation requirements under LaSalle, stating none of Izmirligil's contentions warranted a different result. It waived BNY's compliance with the attorney affirmation requirements imposed under the AOs and §202.12-a(f), granting BNY's motion.

Read more: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202642192374/Bank-of-New-York-Mellon-v.-Izmirligil#ixzz2tyk4PgcD