New Century Fin. Servs. v. Rickenbacker - Default Judgment Appeal

New York Appellate Terms

Filed February 24th, 2026

Detected March 2nd, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a lower court's denial of a motion to vacate a default judgment. The court found that the defendant failed to establish lack of personal jurisdiction or provide a sufficient excuse for the default.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, in the case of New Century Financial Services, Inc. v. Vena Rickenbacker, affirmed the Civil Court's order denying the defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment. The court held that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service and did not offer a sufficient excuse for the default, particularly given the significant delay in challenging the judgment. The defendant's assertions were deemed insufficient to warrant a traverse hearing, and the court also found no basis for vacatur under CPLR 5015 (a)(1) due to the lack of a valid excuse and a meritorious defense.

This decision reinforces the importance of timely challenging service of process and default judgments. For legal professionals and courts, it highlights the standard for vacating default judgments, emphasizing the need for specific excuses and meritorious defenses rather than conclusory statements. The ruling underscores that a failure to properly challenge service or default can lead to the affirmation of judgments, even after a considerable passage of time.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

New Century Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Rickenbacker

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 50222(U)
Docket Number: 571527/25
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Opinion
Authorities (3)
Cited By (1)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

New Century Fin. Servs., Inc. v Rickenbacker (2026 NY Slip Op 50222(U))

[1]
| *New Century Fin. Servs., Inc. v Rickenbacker** |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 50222(U) |
| Decided on February 24, 2026 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |

Decided on February 24, 2026
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: James, P.J., Brigantti, Alpert, JJ.
571527/25

**New Century Financial Services,
Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

against

Vena Rickenbacker a/k/a Vena Leacock, Defendant-Appellant.**

Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Diomarys Escano-Bell, J.), entered March 21, 2025, which denied her motion to vacate a default judgment.

Per Curiam.

Order (Diomarys Escano-Bell, J.), entered March 21, 2025, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction (see CPLR 5015 [a] [4]). Defendant's affidavit submitted more than 16 years after the entry of the judgment failed to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the affidavit of the process server (see Perilla v Carchi, 100 AD3d 429, 430 [2012]). Defendant's conclusory assertions that she "never received the summons and complaint" or that she "could not recall" receiving any other documents related to this matter were insufficient to warrant a traverse hearing (see Grinshpun v Borokhovich, 100 AD3d 551, 552 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 857 [2013]).

Nor was defendant entitled to vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1). Inasmuch as the only excuse offered is the meritless improper service argument, defendant has no excuse for the default and the motion to vacate was properly denied regardless of whether she has a meritorious defense (see Citibank, N.A. v K.L.P. Sportwear, Inc., 144 AD3d 475, 476-477 [2016]; Time Warner City Cable v Tri State Auto, 5 AD3d 153, 153 [2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 656 [2004]). In any event, defendant failed to state a meritorious defense to the action.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: February 24, 2026