§ 349 claim is not preempted, to the extent that plaintiffs seek relief for deceptive acts and practices incident to the alleged breach of the mortgage agreements with defendants. (See Defs.’ Opp. Mem. at 51 (“Defendants violated GBL § 349 and similar state consumer protection laws by demanding and collecting the Disputed Fees when they were not owed by Class members.”).) Cedeno is plainly distinguishable, because plaintiff has asserted that specific contractual provisions have been breached when the Disputed Fees were collected from plaintiffs, and thus the GBL § 349 cause of action does not seek to “set substantive standards or establish particular requirements for lending operations in the state of New York.” Binetti, 446 F.Supp.2d at 220; see also Cassese MTD Opinion at 31-33 (<HOLDING>). However, the Court notes that in their
holding gbl  349 claim and breach of contract claims not preempted gbl  349 complements rather than conflicts with the federal regulatory scheme holding breach of contract claim not preempted under hola holding claim providing additional remedies conflicts with erisas remedial scheme and is preempted holding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on merits of  349 claim premised on likelihood of confusion between marks holding flsa enforcement scheme preempted contract negligence and fraud claims