Here, EMCI established, prima facie, its standing at the commencement of the action by proof that it was the originator of the loan and was still the holder of the note and the mortgage when it commenced the action. The assignment of the note and mortgage several months later to ESB was thus irrelevant to EMCI's standing at the commencement of the action ( cf. HSBC Bank USA, Nat. Assn. v. Calderon, 115 A.D.3d 708, 981 N.Y.S.2d 598). EMCI also established, prima facie, that it strictly complied with the notice requirement of RPAPL 1304 that, at least 90 days before commencing a foreclosure action, a lender serve the defendant with a proper notice under the statute.

Where the issue of standing is properly raised by a defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief against that defendant (seeHSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 983–984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Calderon, 115 A.D.3d 708, 709, 981 N.Y.S.2d 598 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 279, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 ). A plaintiff has standing in a mortgage foreclosure action when it is either the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (seeAurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 361–362, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363 ).

Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief against that defendant (seeHSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 983–984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Calderon, 115 A.D.3d 708, 709, 981 N.Y.S.2d 598 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 279, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 ). "A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is either the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gallagher, 137 A.D.3d 898, 899, 28 N.Y.S.3d 84 ; seeAurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 360–362, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363 ).

Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief against that defendant (seeHSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 983–984, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Calderon, 115 A.D.3d 708, 709, 981 N.Y.S.2d 598 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 279, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 ). "A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is either the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gallagher, 137 A.D.3d 898, 899, 28 N.Y.S.3d 84 ; seeAurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 360–362, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363 ).

The defendant appeals from these orders. Where, as here, the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Roumiantseva, 130 A.D.3d 983, 983, 15 N.Y.S.3d 117 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Calderon, 115 A.D.3d 708, 709, 981 N.Y.S.2d 598 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 279, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 ). "A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is either the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced" ( Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gallagher, 137 A.D.3d 898, 899, 28 N.Y.S.3d 84 ; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 360–362, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363 ). "Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident" ( U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d 752, 754, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578 ; see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Weinberger, 142 A.D.3d 643, 644–645, 37 N.Y.S.3d 286 ). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it had standing to commence this action.

The defendant appeals from these orders. Where, as here, the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Roumiantseva, 130 AD3d 983, 983; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Calderon, 115 AD3d 708, 709; Bank of N.Y. v Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 279). "A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is either the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced" (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gallagher, 137 AD3d 898, 899; see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 360-362). "Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident" (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 754; see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Weinberger, 142 AD3d 643, 644-645).

Warsowe established that the mortgage was assigned to the Schwyters after this action had been commenced. DeNoble's contention that the Schwyters lack standing to be substituted as the plaintiffs because there was insufficient evidence that the Schwyters possessed the note is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Retained Realty, Inc. v. Syed, 137 A.D.3d 1099, 26 N.Y.S.3d 889 ; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Calderon, 115 A.D.3d 708, 981 N.Y.S.2d 598 ).

Where the issue of standing is raised by a defendant, a plaintiff must prove its standing in order to be entitled to relief (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Calderon, 115 A.D.3d 708, 709, 981 N.Y.S.2d 598 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d 274, 279, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 ; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d 752, 753, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578 ). A plaintiff establishes its standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that it is either the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action is commenced (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 25 N.Y.3d 355, 361, 12 N.Y.S.3d 612, 34 N.E.3d 363 [2015] ; see Kondaur Capital Corp. v. McCary, 115 A.D.3d 649, 650, 981 N.Y.S.2d 547 ; Bank of N.Y. v. Silverberg, 86 A.D.3d at 279, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 ).

In opposition, the defendants failed to submit any evidence that would raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they received the billing statements or ever disputed the bills. Their specific argument that the plaintiff was required, and failed, to submit proof of the manner in which the statements were mailed, which was not raised before the Supreme Court, is not properly before this Court ( see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Persad, 117 A.D.3d 676, 985 N.Y.S.2d 608; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Calderon, 115 A.D.3d 708, 981 N.Y.S.2d 598). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the individual defendant, Frank Deluca, by virtue of the language in the parties' agreement, personally guaranteed the amounts owed ( see Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Capital Bldg. & Dev., Inc., 114 A.D.3d 912, 980 N.Y.S.2d 813; HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Goldberger, 105 A.D.3d 906, 907, 963 N.Y.S.2d 324).

Regarding the purported assignment of the note and mortgage, the assignment from MERS to the plaintiff dated August 7, 2009, transferred only the mortgage and, thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the note had also been assigned at that time ( cf. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Coakley, 41 A.D.3d 674, 838 N.Y.S.2d 622). Further, the plaintiff's contention that the unsigned excerpt from a Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated May 1, 2006, constituted a written assignment of the note is improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, is not properly before this Court ( see HSBC Bank USA, Natl. Assn. v. Calderon, 115 A.D.3d 708, 981 N.Y.S.2d 598). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against Faruque, since the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it had standing to commence the action ( see Homecomings Fin., LLC v. Guldi, 108 A.D.3d 506, 509, 969 N.Y.S.2d 470).