In Star Credit Corporation v. Ingram, 71 Misc. 2d 787 (New York County 1972), the defendant first learned of the default judgment against her when she was advised by her bank that a restraining information subpoena was served against her account. She then attempted to pay the judgment in weekly installments, which she eventually stopped. An income execution was served on her employer and additional monies were deducted pursuant thereto. Only later did she come to believe that she had paid more than the cost of the freezer she had purchased on credit, the subject matter of the lawsuit. At that point she filed a consumer complaint and moved to set aside the default judgment based on lack of personal jurisdiction and fraud. The court in Star Credit held that the defendant's course of action over the years waived any claim of lack of personal jurisdiction and she was estopped to deny the validity of service on her. Because the defendant voluntarily made payments for over three years, the plaintiff relied on her awareness of the judgment and underlying proceeding. At the point at which the defendant sought to vacate the judgment, the court said it would be manifestly unfair to permit the defendant to challenge the validity of service. However, in that case the matter was vacated on the grounds of alleged consumer fraud, which was the only ground upon which the defendant was permitted to proceed.