A New York Supreme Court judge ruled against Diego Santiago in a case involving American Express National Bank. Santiago sought to overturn a default judgment for an unpaid credit card balance. The court's decision affects Santiago's financial situation and clarifies the rules around service of process in debt collection cases.
The dispute began when American Express National Bank filed a lawsuit against Santiago on October 3, 2024, for an unpaid credit card balance of $15,726.04. Santiago was served with the lawsuit on October 7, 2024, at a residence in Ossining, New York. However, he claimed that he did not live there at the time of service. The case escalated when the Westchester County Clerk entered a default judgment against Santiago on April 28, 2025, due to his failure to respond to the lawsuit.
After realizing the judgment had been entered, Santiago hired an attorney and filed a motion on November 26, 2025, to vacate the default judgment. He argued that he was not properly served with the lawsuit, which led to the default judgment. Santiago claimed that he had been living in the Dominican Republic since January 2017 and was not at the Ossining address when the service occurred. He requested a hearing to prove that the service was improper.
In response, American Express contended that Santiago was indeed served correctly. The bank argued that the service was valid as it was made directly to Santiago at the location specified. The case was brought before Judge Walter Rivera in the Westchester County Supreme Court.
On April 2, 2026, Judge Rivera issued a ruling denying Santiago's motion to vacate the default judgment. The court determined that the service of process was proper under New York law. Judge Rivera stated, "The court finds that defendant's assertions are conclusory and unsubstantiated." He emphasized that the process server's affidavit confirmed that Santiago was served according to the legal requirements.
Judge Rivera explained that under New York law, personal service can be made by delivering the summons directly to the person being served. He noted that the process server provided a detailed description of Santiago and confirmed his identity during the service. The judge further stated, "Having been properly served, and having failed to answer in a timely manner, the Westchester County Clerk properly entered the default judgment against the defendant."
This ruling has significant implications for Santiago, who had sought to overturn the judgment and recover funds that were seized from his accounts. The court's decision means that the default judgment remains in effect, and Santiago will still be responsible for the debt owed to American Express.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Santiago's personal situation. It reinforces the importance of proper service of process in debt collection cases, clarifying that a defendant cannot simply claim improper service without providing substantial evidence. The ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing the need for defendants to respond promptly to legal actions.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Santiago will appeal the decision. The ruling indicates that he has limited options for contesting the default judgment. If he chooses to appeal, it could lead to further legal proceedings. However, details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing.