Synchrony Bank, Plaintiff, v. Chazvito Candio, Defendant. (2026)

Papers Used on Motion: NYSCEF Doc Nos. 1-25.

Background

The underlying action involves a breach of contract, in which Defendant Chazvito Candio ("Defendant") failed to make credit card payments to Plaintiff Synchrony Bank ("Plaintiff"). Subject to the terms and conditions, Defendant opened a CareCredit-branded revolving credit account ("the Account") with Plaintiff, the original creditor and owner of the Account. Defendant used the Account and incurred a balance of $4,723.86, making his last payment in the amount of $127.00 on or about October 18, 2024. Despite demand for payment made on Defendant, he failed to complete all the required payments. As a result of Defendant's default, Plaintiff closed the Account and subsequently charged it off in the amount of $5,119.94 on February 19, 2025. Plaintiff sought judgment in the sum of $5,119.94 together with costs and disbursements. (See NYSCEF Doc No. 1.) The Kings County Clerk entered a default judgment against Defendant in the sum of $5,119.94 on October 28, 2025 (see NYSCEF Doc No. 12).

On or about June 24, 2026, Defendant filed an amended order to show cause seeking vacatur of the default judgment and dismissal of Plaintiff's cause of action, asserting that the summons and complaint were served to the wrong address and he was never served (see NYSCEF Doc No. 15). In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to this action, thereby not complying with CPLR 5015. Moreover, Plaintiff avers that Defendant was properly served in accordance with CPLR 308 (2), arguing the process server's affidavit constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service and the movant's conclusory denial of receipt is insufficient to raise any issues of fact (see NYSCEF Doc No. 17).

Discussion

"A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing upon the ground of excusable default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action" (Bank of Am. N.A. v Patino, 128 AD3d 994, 994 [2d Dept 2015]).

CPLR 308 (2) provides, in pertinent part, that personal service upon a natural person may be made "by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by . . . mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence." In dealing with an issue concerning substituted service, the Second Department wrote: "Valid service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) may be made by delivery of the summons and complaint to a person of suitable age and discretion who answers the door at a defendant's residence, but is not a resident of the subject property" (Bank of NY v Espejo, 92 AD3d 707, 708 [2d Dept 2012]).

A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service (see Summitbridge Credit Invs., LLC v Wallace, 128 AD3d 676 [2015]; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Todd, 125 AD3d 933 [2015]). "Although a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by a process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing, no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits" (Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Kamil, 155 AD3d 966, 967 [2d Dept 2017], quoting Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Quinones, 114 AD3d 719, 719 [2d Dept 2014]). Nowhere in Defendant's conclusory affidavit was there specific mention of how the affirmation of service was allegedly false.

Here, the process server's affirmation of service contained sworn allegations reciting that service was made upon Defendant by leaving the relevant papers with a person of suitable age and discretion, namely Fanzio Candio, described as a black-haired Hispanic female co-resident who was 55-65 years old, 5'4"-5'6" tall, and weighing 180-200 lbs., at Defendant's residence; this was followed up by a mailing (see NYSCEF Doc No. 3). Accordingly, the affirmation of service constituted prima facie evidence of service of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) (see U.S. Bank N.A. v Telford, 153 AD3d 881, 881-882 [2d Dept 2017]; US Bank N.A. v Ramos, 153 AD3d 882, 884 [2d Dept 2017]). The Court notes that Defendant's conclusory statements in his affidavit submitted in support of the order to show cause lacked a denial that the person described by the process server was present on the date of service.

"The plaintiff's evidence demonstrating that multiple copies of process were mailed to the defendant at his correct residential address created a presumption of proper mailing and of receipt, and the defendant's mere denial of receipt, without more, was insufficient to rebut that presumption [citations omitted]" (Bedessee Imports, Inc. v Najjar, 170 AD3d 640, 642 [2d Dept 2019]). Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of proper mailing and of receipt established by Plaintiff.

Moreover, a meritorious defense is absent in Defendant's affirmation (see New Century Mortgage Corporation v Adeyan-Ju, 139 AD3d 683 [2d Dept 2016] ["A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing upon the ground of excusable default must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action"]). Similarly, Defendant failed to provide specifics to rebut Plaintiff's claim of nonpayment of the complete amount owed on the Account, and does not allege the amounts shown in the complaint are different from what he believes to be correct. He does not present what the correct amount should be, nor does he provide any exhibits to support his claim that the judgment should be vacated.

In the absence of an excusable default, a meritorious defense, and any supporting exhibits, Defendant's motion to vacate the October 28, 2025 judgment herein is unavailing. Therefore, Defendant's motion which seeks vacatur of the default judgment entered against him and dismissal of Plaintiff's cause of action must be denied. That service of the summons and complaint by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion was effectuated pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) was not rebutted by him.

Conclusion

It is hereby ORDERED that the motion of Defendant Chazvito Candio to vacate the default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Synchrony Bank entered on October 28, 2025 is hereby DENIED, and the stay on enforcement and collection efforts is vacated.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Aaron D. Maslow, J.* FN* This Court acknowledges the assistance of Guanting (William) Huang, judicial intern and graduate of New York University, in the preparation of this decision.