A New York Supreme Court judge has upheld a default judgment against Christopher J. Ruisi, ruling that he failed to provide sufficient evidence to vacate the judgment. The case, Waldman Development of NY, LLC v. Ruisi, was decided on February 27, 2026, and involves a dispute over service of process and the legitimacy of the default judgment entered against Ruisi.
The court's decision affects Ruisi, who now remains liable for a money judgment of $290,277.65 awarded to Waldman Development of NY, LLC. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the importance of proper service of process in legal proceedings and clarifies the standards for vacating a default judgment in New York.
Background
The plaintiff in this case, Waldman Development of NY, LLC, filed a civil action against defendant Christopher J. Ruisi, leading to a default judgment entered on December 9, 2025. The judgment was later reduced to a money judgment of $290,277.65 on January 5, 2026. The dispute arose when Ruisi claimed he had not received proper notice of the lawsuit, which he argued rendered the default judgment invalid.
Ruisi contended that he was unaware of the action against him until after the default judgment was entered. He claimed that the service of process was improperly executed at an address where he did not live, asserting that he resided at a different location in Staten Island at the time of service. This prompted him to file a motion seeking to vacate the default judgment, arguing that he had an excusable reason for not responding to the lawsuit.
The Ruling
Judge Ronald Castorina Jr. presided over the case and ultimately ruled against Ruisi's motion to vacate the default judgment. The court found that Ruisi failed to establish a sufficient basis for vacating the judgment under New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 5015. Specifically, the court noted that Ruisi did not provide compelling evidence to counter the plaintiff's claims regarding proper service.
The court ruled, "Defendant has failed to establish a sufficient basis to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR § 5015 [a] [1], as Plaintiff has demonstrated that service was effectuated at multiple addresses identified through official and investigative means."
Furthermore, the judge highlighted that Ruisi's assertion of not receiving notice was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service established by the plaintiff's affidavit. The court concluded that the plaintiff had conducted a diligent investigation to locate Ruisi and had complied with the statutory requirements for service.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving default judgments and service of process. It reinforces the necessity for defendants to actively monitor legal proceedings against them, especially when they are aware of potential claims. The court's decision also underscores the importance of diligent service efforts by plaintiffs, which can include multiple attempts to locate and notify defendants.
By denying Ruisi's motion, the court has set a precedent that emphasizes the burden on defendants to provide compelling evidence when contesting service of process. This ruling may deter other defendants from attempting to vacate default judgments without substantial proof of improper service or lack of notice.
What's Next
Ruisi can appeal the court's decision if he chooses to pursue further legal action. However, the ruling currently stands, and the default judgment remains in effect. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing.