Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, respondent, v. Marina Ilyasov, et al., appellants, et al., defendants. (2026)

Argued—February 13, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

C/

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Marina Ilyasov and Mark Suleymanov appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Edmund M. Dane, J.), dated August 26, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants and for an order of reference and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

By summons and complaint dated March 9, 2023, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants Marina Ilyasov and Mark Suleymanov (hereinafter together the defendants), among others, to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property located in Glen Cove.

After issue was joined, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants and for an order of reference.  The defendants opposed the motion.  By order dated August 26, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted those branches of the motion and appointed a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiff.  The defendants appeal.

“ ‘Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action’ ” (Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Swanson, 231 AD3d 801, 804–805, quoting U.S. Bank N.A. v. Jeffrey, 222 AD3d 802, 804).  “ ‘A defense based on noncompliance with RPAPL 1304 may be raised at any time during the action’ ” (id. at 805, quoting U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Mohammed, 197 AD3d 1205, 1207).  “[T]he plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of the statute's notice requirements” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  “ ‘A plaintiff can establish strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 by submitting domestic return receipts, proof of a standard office procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, or an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge that the mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice actually happened’ ” (id., quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fregosi, 222 AD3d 811, 812).

Here, contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, its compliance with RPAPL 1304, through an affidavit of Robert Ortega, an authorized representative of the plaintiff's loan servicer and attorney-in-fact, and the business records attached thereto (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ciurleo, 244 AD3d 1024, 1026;  Citimortgage, Inc. v. Ustick, 188 AD3d 793, 795).  In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Moreover, contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it had physical possession of the note prior to the commencement of the action, as evidenced by its attachment of a copy of the note, which contained an endorsement in blank, to the summons and complaint when the action was commenced (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ciurleo, 244 AD3d at 1024;  Amalgamated Bank v. Freue, 178 AD3d 890, 890–891).  In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The defendants' remaining contention is without merit.

LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, WOOTEN and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court