be resolved in favor of preemption. Cedeno v. IndyMac Bancorp, Inc., No. 06-CV-6438, 2008 WL 3992304, at *6, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65337, at *19-20 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2008) (quoting 61 Fed. Reg. 50951, 50966-67 (Sept. 30, 1996)). NYGBL § 349 declares unlawful “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a). “[A]s a general matter, claims brought under broad consumer deceptive practices such as [NYGBL] § 349 are not preempted because they simply seek to enforce truthfulness in commercial transactions, which is expected of federal thrift institutions as a baseline matter.” McAnaney, 665 F.Supp.2d at 167; see also Binetti v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 446 F.Supp.2d 217, 220 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, “OTS field preemption applies
holding that nygbl  349 is a commercial statute of general applicability which while having an incidental impact on lending relationships is excepted from ots preemption under 12 cfr  5602c holding preemption by cal govt code  8572 a law of general applicability recognizing that federal preemption is affirmative defense as to which defendant has burden of proof holding that a party did not waive its preemption defense where its answer did not specifically mention preemption but contained a broader defense that was capable of encompassing preemption holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists