SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-2028-22 

DISCOVER BANK, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

CHRYSSOULA ARSENIS, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

 

Argued May 22, 2024 – Decided July 30, 2024 

Before Judges Currier and Vanek. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Somerset County, Docket No. DC-000755-

21.

Chryssoula Arsenis, appellant, argued the cause pro se. 

Donald V. Valenzano, Jr. argued the cause for 

respondent (Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, LLP, attorneys; 

Donald V. Valenzano, Jr. and Michael J. Peters, on the 

brief). 

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-2028-22

 In this debt collection action, defendant appeals from the December 23, 

2022 order entering judgment for plaintiff and the March 6, 2023 order denying 

her motion for reconsideration. We affirm. 

 Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judgment against defendant after she 

defaulted on her credit card account. The Special Civil Part Clerk sent the 

complaint by mail to 65 Mountain Blvd., Unit 207, Warren, New Jersey. 

Thereafter, the "Customer Assistance Group" of the Speech & Language Center, 

LLC located at the Mountain Blvd address sent a letter to plaintiff's counsel 

stating: 

 Please be advised that Speech and Language 

Center, L.L.C is in receipt of the legal case Docket NO. 

SOM-DC-000755-21 Civil Action involving your 

Legal Firm. 

 It would be greatly appreciated if you cease, and 

halt serving irrelevant or personal matters to a business 

entity, such as Speech and Language Center, L.L.C. 

The unsigned letter carbon copied the Somerset Civil Division. The

certified mail had a sticker that stated "ATTEMPTED—NOT KNOWN." The

envelope also had writing on it that stated "REFUSED" and "return to sender." 

The Special Civil Part deemed the service effective. 

After receiving the anonymous letter, plaintiff found a residential address 

for defendant and asked the Special Civil Part to vacate the effective service and 
3 A-2028-22

serve the complaint on defendant at 6 Quail Run, Warren, New Jersey. Tax 

assessment records indicated defendant was the sole and current owner of the 

property. The court granted the application. 

The clerk served the complaint by regular and certified mail to the Quail 

Run address on September 28, 20211 but both were returned with a postal sticker 

stating "ATTEMPTED—NOT KNOWN." The court dismissed the case for lack 

of service in November 2021.

In April 2022, plaintiff moved to vacate the dismissal and deem the 

September 28, 2021 service effective. In addition to the above-described 

information regarding attempted service, plaintiff advised the court it had sent 

a letter to defendant at the Quail Run address via FedEx and the delivery was 

successful. In addition, plaintiff had not been notified defendant had changed 

her address. 

The court granted the motion on May 17, 2022, vacating the dismissal and 

deeming service effective on September 28, 2021 at the Quail Run address. 

Plaintiff sent the order to defendant via regular and certified mail. Both items 

were refused. Defendant did not answer the complaint. 

1

 This appears to be a typographical error in the pleading. Per the USPS 

Tracking notes, the certified mail was delivered September 29, 2021. 
4 A-2028-22

In November 2022, plaintiff moved for the entry of default judgment. 

Defendant responded by objecting to the motion, stating she was never served 

with the complaint. Defendant listed the Quail Run address as her address on 

the answer and asserted she received the motion for entry of default judgment at 

that address. Her listed email was speechandlanguage@gmail.com. 

Judge Haekyoung Suh granted the motion on December 5, 2022, noting 

the court could not consider defendant's objection because she was in default. 

Judgment was entered against defendant for $12,279.41. 

Thereafter, defendant moved to vacate default, reiterating she was not 

served with the complaint. Judge Suh denied the motion on December 23, 2022. 

In a cogent statement of reasons, Judge Suh stated: 

Court records and plaintiff's certifications reflect that, 

despite initial issues with mailing, the summons and 

complaint were mailed and delivered to defendant's 

home address on September 29, 2021 via regular and 

certified mail. At oral argument plaintiff's counsel 

confirmed that the summons and complaint, as well as 

the May 20, 2022 [o]rder were served by regular and 

certified mail to defendant. Although certified mail 

was not signed for by defendant, the regular mail was 

not returned. Accordingly, plaintiff's service complied 

with the Court Rules and was proper. Defendant does 

not dispute that she resides at the mailing address of 6 

Quail Run, Warren, New Jersey, now or at the date of 

mailing. Defendant's mere contention that she did not 

sign for the certified mail is of no moment. The absence 

of defendant's signature on the certified mailing card is 
5 A-2028-22

not evidence of defective service and does not rebut the 

presumption of proper service by regular mail. 

The judge further noted defendant had not proffered a meritorious defense 

to the complaint as required under Rule 4:50-1(a) to vacate judgment. Nor had 

defendant demonstrated exceptional circumstances to permit relief from the 

judgment under Rule 4:50-1(f). 

Judge Suh denied defendant's subsequent motion for reconsideration on 

March 6, 2023. In a written statement of reasons, Judge Suh stated: 

 Defendant has not articulated any basis upon 

which this court erred or failed to appreciate the 

significance of probative evidence. This court 

thoroughly investigated defendant's contention that

there was a lack of service and confirmed the service 

was properly effectuated. While the summons and 

complaint were initially served at an employer's 

address, plaintiff filed a certification of service dated 

May 25, 2021 confirming the summons and complaint 

were re-served on defendant at 6 Quail Run, Warren,

New Jersey. The certified mail tracking number in 

eCourts confirmed that the summons and complaint 

mailed via USPS certified mail were delivered to 

defendant's home address at 6 Quail Run, Warren, New

Jersey 07059 on September 29, 2021 at 6:16 p.m. 

Defendant has not identified any new evidence that was 

not available at the time this court denied defendant's 

motion to vacate. Nor has defendant presented a 

meritorious defense. Defendant focuses on lack of 

service and violating due process rights ignoring 

entirely the May 17, 2022 determination of service. 

Finding that defendant has not satisfied the 
6 A-2028-22

requirements under R[ule] 4:49-2, defendant's motion 

for reconsideration is denied. 

 On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in denying her motion to 

vacate default judgment and in denying her motion for reconsideration because 

she was not served with the summons and complaint. 

 We review both orders for an abuse of discretion. As our Supreme Court 

has stated, a trial court's decision under Rule 4:50-1 "warrants substantial 

deference, and should not be reversed unless it results in a clear abuse of 

discretion." US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012). 

We apply the same standard to a trial court's determination of a motion 

for reconsideration. Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021). 

An abuse of discretion occurs "when a decision is '"made without a rational 

explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an 

impermissible basis."'" Guillaume, 209 N.J. at 467-68 (quoting Iliadis v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123-24 (2007)). 

Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we deem 

defendant's arguments without merit. They do not warrant any further 

discussion beyond the comments set forth in Judge Suh's written opinions of 

December 23, 2022, and March 6, 2023. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

 Affirmed.