On April 22, 2026, the Second Department issued a decision in Cox v. First Citizens Bancshares, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 02388, holding that a court may grant a declaratory judgment in response to a motion to dismiss, explaining:
Pursuant to CPLR 3001, the supreme court may render a declaratory judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy. The demand for relief in the complaint shall specify the rights and other legal relations on which a declaration is requested.
In general, a motion to dismiss the complaint in a declaratory judgment action presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief has been stated, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration. Accordingly, if a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy, a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied. However, where the court, deeming the allegations of the complaint to be true, is nevertheless able to determine, as a matter of law, that the defendant is entitled to a declaration in its favor, the court may enter a judgment making the appropriate declaration.
Here, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment releasing them from the mortgage loan based on allegations that the defendant, as the alleged holder but non-originator of the loan, did not respond to the plaintiffs’ request to provide them with the chain of title. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, there is no legal basis for the requested declaration, and the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a judgment declaring that its failure to respond to the plaintiffs’ request to produce the chain of title for the mortgage loan does not entitle them to be released from the loan. To the extent the complaint could be viewed as seeking a declaratory judgment releasing the plaintiffs from the mortgage loan based on allegations that the defendant lacks standing to enforce the loan in a foreclosure action, such a cause of action would be premature and an improper request for an advisory opinion. Significantly, a plaintiff seeking to foreclose a mortgage must merely be the owner or holder of the note at the time of commencement of the mortgage foreclosure action, which is not alleged to have yet occurred.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).