Perhaps unexpectedly, a recent case says "yes" and this is a scary (but salutary) ruling for any mortgage holder—although it is appropriate to add that the reckoning could have been avoided if the mortgage holder was more careful in paying attention to its situation. [Bank of New York v. Terrapin Industries, LLC, 189 A.D.3d 620, 139 N.Y.S.3d 149 (1^st Dept. 2020).]

There is an immediate perspective as to why laches as a possible defense is particularly worthy of consideration. While in significant commercial cases borrowers' defenses tend to be related to the realities of the transaction (whether foreclosing plaintiffs deem them valid or not), in the residential situation, candor elicits the observation that "shotgun" defenses are oft-encountered. It is not unusual for answers in residential foreclosure cases to contain 10, 20 or even 30 or more affirmative defenses.

While a legitimate defense could of course exist in any given case, it should be apparent that all of those could not possibly apply in a single case. Yet, there is some tendency for borrower defendants to assert every conceivable defense in the hope that something might work. Typical on the list is the doctrine of laches for which there is rarely any colorable support. Even where it might actually be argued in opposition to a motion for summary judgment—beyond merely being recited in any answer—overwhelmingly it is unsuccessful. Given that vantage point, where laches does threaten the integrity of a foreclosure action, it is both unusual and noteworthy.