Kremenchutsky v. Citizens Bank N.A.
1:24-cv-01615
E.D.N.YApr 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Alexander Kremenchutsky and Chana Levitsky obtained an $880,000 mortgage loan from Citizens Bank in 2019.
- In March 2020, plaintiffs participated in a government-sponsored mortgage forbearance program due to COVID-19, allegedly based on representations by Citizens Bank agents.
- Plaintiffs attempted to refinance or modify their loan but were told they could not due to forbearance status, and allege the bank delayed or failed to timely respond to their applications.
- Plaintiffs previously brought similar claims in New York state court, which were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- In this federal suit, plaintiffs allege violations of TILA, RESPA, the CARES Act, and common law fraud, and seek damages and declaratory relief. The bank moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TILA applicability | TILA disclosures should attach to modification/refinance applications, even if not completed | TILA only triggered by new transactions; no new credit extended here | Dismissed: no new transaction, claim also time-barred |
| RESPA violation | Bank failed to respond to modification and forbearance-related requests, causing damages | No qualified written request alleged, no damages pleaded | Dismissed: No QWR or actual damages plead |
| CARES Act private right of action | Congress intended for borrowers like plaintiffs to enforce rights under CARES Act | CARES Act lacks express/implied private right of action | Dismissed: No private right, no violation alleged |
| Common law fraud | Bank misrepresented forbearance, causing financial harm | Fraud not pleaded with specificity; claim barred by res judicata | Dismissed: Barred by res judicata and insufficiently pleaded |
| Declaratory Judgment | Sought as independent cause of action | Not a standalone cause of action under federal law | Dismissed: Procedurally improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for facially plausible claims)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (private rights of action must be created by Congress)
- Brown Media Corp. v. K&L Gates, LLP, 854 F.3d 150 (res judicata precludes new claims based on same transaction though differing theory/remedy)
- Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co., 93 N.Y.2d 343 (all claims arising from same transaction barred after final judgment)
- Ryder v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 767 F. App’x 29 (TILA disclosure requirements not triggered for mere modification absent new credit)