Matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Papailias

Matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Papailias 2026 NY Slip Op 05922 October 13, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Plaintiff-Respondent, v George Papailias, Defendant-Appellant, Giulia Papailias et al., Defendants-Respondents. Decided and Entered: October 13, 2026 Index No. 850305/24|Appeal No. 7222|Case No. 2025-07806| Before: Moulton, J.P., Scarpulla, Michael, Hagler, JJ. The Kearney Law Group, New York (Cannon C. Kearney of counsel), for appellant. Reed Smith LLP, New York (Ofunne N. Edoziem of counsel), for Giulia Papailias, respondent. [*1] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis A. Kahn, III, J.), entered on or about November 17, 2025, which, to the extent appealed, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its mortgage foreclosure claim and appointed a referee to compute, and dismissed defendant George Papailias's affirmative defenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff adequately established defendant George Papailias's default. Plaintiff's submissions established that plaintiff itself made the records concerning the default, not a third party. Jaci Stevens, plaintiff's vice president of loan documentation, submitted an affidavit, based on her personal knowledge, which established that the records showing defendant's default were admissible as business records because they were made in the regular course of plaintiff's business and the relevant records were made at or near the time of the occurrences they reflected, by persons with personal knowledge of the matters contained therein or from information transmitted by people with such personal knowledge (see CPLR 4518[a]). Plaintiff also established that it complied with RPAPL 1304. Stevens attested to familiarity with the mailing practices of nonparty COVIUS Holdings LLC, plaintiff's agent responsible for the mailings. She provided detailed information concerning how mailing records were maintained, transmitted, and incorporated into plaintiff's mortgage files and business records, and how plaintiff routinely relied upon them in the course of its business. She also included copies of the records, which contained information documenting the mailing procedures. Stevens' testimony and the accompanying records satisfied plaintiff's prima facie burden of establishing that plaintiff sent the required statutory notices (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Gordon, 171 AD3d 197, 209 [2d Dept 2019]). Defendant's sworn denial of receipt did not, standing alone, raise a question of fact as to non-delivery (see CIT Bank N.A. v Schiffman, 36 NY3d 550, 557 [2021]). Plaintiff established its standing by attaching a copy of the note, endorsed to plaintiff, to the complaint (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. N.A., 95 AD3d 695 [1st Dept 2012]; see also JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Grennan, 175 AD3d 1513, 1516 [2d Dept 2019]). In any event, plaintiff also established that it possessed the note in 2024, when it brought this action, by including records showing that plaintiff retained possession of the note at the time the complaint was filed and by attesting that these and other documents plaintiff made were business records. [*2] We have considered and rejected defendant's arguments concerning the court's failure to address dismissal of each affirmative defense individually, because the record is sufficient for us to review the viability of the defenses (see Matter of Horowitz v Zucker, 172 AD3d 538, 539 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 913 [2019]). Upon such review, we conclude that the defenses were properly dismissed as either refuted by plaintiff's proof or because they were otherwise conclusory and unsupported by any facts in the answer or in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion. To the extent defendant failed to address certain of the affirmative defenses in opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion, those defenses are deemed abandoned. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: October 13, 2026