The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 16, 17 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Plaintiff Pension Investors 99, LLC (“Plaintiff”) seeks an award of Summary Judgment in Lieu of a Complaint under CPLR 3213, based on two Promissory Notes entered with Defendant Broad Street Plaza Associate LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed the instant motion on August 22, 2019. Defendant has not opposed the motion. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is Granted. CPLR 3213 provides that “[w]hen an action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only…the plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint.” This provision “was enacted to provide quick relief on documentary claims so presumptively meritorious that a formal complaint is superfluous, and even the delay incident upon waiting for an answer and then moving for summary judgment is needless.” Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank, B.A. v. Navarro, 25 N.Y.3d 485, 491-92 (2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “To establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in lieu of complaint, a plaintiff must show the existence of a promissory note executed by the defendant containing an unequivocal and unconditional obligation to repay and the failure of the defendant to pay in accordance with the note’s terms.” Zyskind v. FaceCake Mktg. Techs., Inc., 101 A.D.3d 550, 551 (1st Dep’t 2012). “Once the plaintiff submits evidence establishing these elements, the burden shifts to the defendant to submit evidence establishing the existence of a triable issue with respect to a bona fide defense.” Id.; see Seaman-Andwall Corp. v. Wright Machine Corp., 31 A.D.2d 136, 137 (1st Dep’t 1968). Here, there is no question that this action is based on an instrument for the payment of money only. LaBoeuf v. Saide, 134 A.D.3d 515, 516 (1st Dep’t 2015) (granting summary judgment in lieu of complaint “as there is no basis to conclude that the promissory note was anything other than an instrument for the payment of money only”). On August 31, 1999, Defendant made two Promissory Notes — the “Pa. Promissory Note” and the “W. Va. Promissory Note” — payable to Plaintiff in the principal amounts of $650,000 and $50,000, respectively. Affidavit of Carl Christensen (“Christensen Aff.”), 2 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 3). Both Promissory Notes provided that interest would accrue at the rate of 10.5 percent per annum compounded monthly until March 31, 2019 when “[t]he entire principal balance, together with all accrued and unpaid interest” was due and owing. Id. Initially, Defendant failed to pay any portion of the principal or interest due on the Promissory Notes. Id., 19. On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff sent a Notice of Default to Defendant, “demand[ing] payment of all amounts due on the Promissory Notes,” and stating that failure “to pay such amounts within thirty days following receipt of this Notice of Default will constitute an Event of Default under the Promissory Notes.” Id., Ex. F (NYSCEF Doc. No. 9). In subsequent email correspondence, Defendant acknowledged that the Promissory Notes were due and owing, but advised Plaintiff that it was working to raise money to pay off the Promissory Notes. Id.,
