Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion and Affirmations in Support 1 Affirmation in Opposition 2 DECISION/ORDER Plaintiff Forster Group moves to reargue the Court’s March 22, 2021 decision and order granting defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment in this action to the extent that this matter was set down for a traverse hearing (the “Underlying Decision”). The Court grants plaintiff’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adheres to its prior decision for the reasons set forth below. BACKGROUND Plaintiff commenced this action for breach of a credit card agreement on July 7, 2011, seeking to recover the sum of $11,283.04. Defendant did not appear or answer and on January 13, 2012 a judgment was entered against defendant in the amount of $15,093.15 (the “Judgment”). On September 30, 2020, defendant moved by order to show cause to vacate the Judgment pursuant to CPLR §§5015(a)(1) and (a)(4). In support of her motion, defendant submitted an affidavit stating that plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint at 1380 Riverside Drive, Apartment 8E, New York, NY was invalid because she had moved from that address nine years before the date service was allegedly effected. In opposition, plaintiff argued that the defendant waived her defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to object to plaintiff’s garnishment of her wages approximately sixty times between July 12, 2012 and September 28, 2020 or to otherwise respond to various letters mailed by plaintiff to defendant informing her of the Judgment. In the Underlying Decision, the Court — relying on HSBC Bank USA v. A&R Trucking Company, Inc. — held that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant waived her personal jurisdiction defense by “explicitly or implicitly participat[ing] in the action, thus acknowledging the validity of the judgment” or “demonstrat[ing] a lack of good faith or delay in asserting [her] rights” (HSBC Bank USA v. A & R Trucking Co., Inc., 66 AD3d 606, 607 [1st Dept 2009]). This decision was based on defendant’s supplemental affidavit, in which she asserted that: In 2012, when [p]laintiff says the garnishment started, my hours varied and although I saw that money was being deducted from my paycheck, I didn’t know what it was for but believed it was for health insurance or taxes…It wasn’t until 2014 that I found out from Trader Joe’s that my wages were being garnished. At that time, Trader Joe’s gave me the name and number for [p]laintiff’s attorney. I immediately called them and told them that I did not owe any money on a Citibank credit card and I asked them to stop the garnishment…The person I spoke to told me that I had to pay the debt because they had a judgment and there was nothing I could do…A few months later, in March 2015, I left Trader Joe’s, so the garnishment stopped. I hoped it had been resolved because of my phone call, but then in July 2020, the garnishment started again” (Aezen Supplemental. Aff.,
