Plaintiff Altz Group, Inc., brings this unopposed motion-action under CPLR 3213 to collect on sums allegedly owed on a promissory note executed by defendants. Plaintiff has not established entitlement to the full amount it claims. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint is granted only to the extent of awarding $9,102.90, and otherwise denied. BACKGROUND On October 4, 2017, the parties to this action executed a promissory note for $31,200 to resolve an earlier dispute over payment for construction work. (NYSCEF No. 5 at 1.) The note provides that the principal sum shall be paid in five payments: $15,000 due at execution, and the remainder to be paid in four monthly installments of $4,050. (Id.) The “Principal Balance of this Note shall bear interest at the rate of 16 percent per annum or the maximum allowed by law, whichever is greater,” accruing from “3/28/16, the due date of the final payment request” in the underlying construction dispute, “to and until the Principal Amount plus interest is paid in full.” (Id.) The note further provided that if that principal balance is paid on schedule, interest is waived. (See id.) Failure to make any required payment constitutes an event of default. (Id.) Upon an event of default, plaintiff may accelerate the remaining balance in unpaid principal and interest; and defendants become responsible for “all costs of collection, including court and reasonable attorney’s fees.” (Id.) Defendants timely paid the initial $15,000 and the first three monthly payments of $4,050. (See NYSCEF No. 6 at 2 [affidavit of plaintiff's principal].) The fourth payment was not made until some time in April 2018, approximately two months late. (Id.) It appears undisputed, though, that the full principal balance was satisfied at that point. (See id. at 14.) In November 2018, plaintiff brought a CPLR 3213 motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint in Supreme Court, New York County. (See Altz Grp., Inc. v. Kirsh, Index No. 655562/2018, NYSCEF No. 2.) In that motion-action, plaintiff sought $9,102.90 — apparently $6,155.40 in interest and $2,947.50 in attorney fees (supported by detailed billing records). (See id., NYSCEF No. 3 at
23-24 [affirmation in support of motion]; NYSCEF No. 11 [billing records].) Plaintiff requested assignment of the action to the Commercial Division of Supreme Court (id., NYSCEF No. 9) — notwithstanding the Commercial Division’s $500,000 threshold. The matter was initially assigned on plaintiff’s request to the Commercial Division (Joel M. Cohen, J.). Defendants opposed plaintiff’s CPLR 3213 motion. (See id., NYSCEF Nos. 14-24.) In November 2018, shortly after defendants filed their opposition papers, the matter was removed from the Commercial Division and reassigned to an IAS part of Supreme Court (Louis L. Nock, J.). (See id., NYSCEF No. 25.) Justice Nock held in July 2019 that plaintiff’s motion-action was more appropriately brought in the Civil Court of the City of New York, presumably in light the small dollar amount in controversy. (Id., NYSCEF No. 27 at 1.) He therefore denied the CPLR 3213 motion without prejudice, ordered the motion-action removed to Civil Court under CPLR 325 (d), and directed plaintiff to serve notice of entry on the Clerk of the Court and assist in effectuating transfer of the action from Supreme Court to Civil Court. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, in November 2020, plaintiff moved again for summary judgment before Justice Nock. (See id. at NYSCEF Nos. 28-38].) Plaintiff’s counsel appears to have been under the misimpression that the November 2018 transfer of the motion-action from the Commercial Division to an IAS part of Supreme Court had instead been a transfer from Supreme Court to Civil Court. (See id., NYSCEF No. 41 at
