part and DENYING in part MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION This case arises from the unknowing purchase of defective 501K nitrile medical gloves (hereafter, the “Gloves”), under what appears to be a bait-and-switch scenario. After Plaintiff Vizocom ICT, LLC (“Plaintiff” or the “Company”) discovered the Gloves it purchased were defective and that the seller, Defendant PPE Medical Supply, LLC (“Defendant” or “PPE Medical”),1 would not replace the Gloves or refund the Company’s money, the Company commenced this action alleging, inter alia, claims of breach of contract and fraud against PPE Medical and seeking damages. (See Compl. ECF No. 1; Am. Compl., ECF No. 24.) PPE Medical has not appeared in the action. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant (hereafter, the “Motion”). (See ECF No. 48.) Despite Plaintiff’s service of the Motion upon the Defendant, it is unopposed. (See Aff. of Serv., ECF No. 48-2; Case Docket, in toto.) For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. BACKGROUND I. Relevant Factual Background While the Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts giving rise to this action, for the reader’s convenience, it provides the following summary. In March 2021, in a Florida facility, a Company representative inspected 501K nitrile medical gloves that PPE Medical was purporting to sell; the inspected 510K nitrile medical gloves did not reveal defects that would make them unsuitable for medical use. Based upon that inspection, the Company agreed to purchase more than 2.9 million 510K nitrite medical gloves from PPE Medical, paying PPE Medical $345,700.00 for them. Unbeknownst to the Company, it received the Gloves instead. Upon their delivery from PPE Medical, the Company proceeded to sell the Gloves to its medical customers. By the end of March 2021, the Company began receiving complaints from its medical customers that the Gloves were defective. As a result, on March 28, 2021, the Company notified PPE Medical that the Gloves were defective and nonconforming; thus, it requested a replacement of goods or a refund. PPR Medical refused. The Company followed up with two demand letters seeking replacement goods or a refund; again, PPE Medical refused. II. Relevant Procedural Background This lawsuit followed. In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges causes of action sounding in breach of contract (Count One) and fraud (Count Two), among others. It seeks $165,914.00 in damages. Despite proper service of the summons and Complaint upon it, PPE Medical never appeared. (See Aff. of Serv., ECF No. 13; Case Docket, in toto.) On June 23, 2022, the Clerk of Court noted PPE Medical’s default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Entry of Default, ECF No. 46.) On September 1, 2022, the Company moved for default judgment.2 In an affidavit submitted in support of the Motion, the Company’s Owner and General Manager, George Attar avers: “PPE Medical’s supply of nonconforming defective gloves resulted in damages to Plaintiff of $165,914.00.” (Attar Aff., ECF No. 48-1, 7, attached to Motion.) He then, baldly, puts forth the following table: Customers that returned gloves Number of Returned Gloves Price per glove Retail Cost Lost profit charged to Customers percent Total Amount Owed Batch 1 450,000 $0.1150 $51,750.00 10 percent $63,000 Batch 2 223,000 $0.1150 $25,645.00 10 percent $31,220 Batch 3 80,100 $0.1150 $9,211.50 10 percent $11,214 Batch 4 432,000 $0.1150 $49,680.00 10 percent $60,480 Total Damges $165,914 (Id.) While Plaintiff attached its purchase invoice from PPE Medical to its Amended Complaint (see Invoice, ECF No. 24-1), there is no documentation offered that substantiate the claimed damages. DISCUSSION I. Applicable Law “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is the basic procedure to be followed when there is a default in the course of litigation.” Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 246 (2d Cir.2004). “Rule 55 provides a ‘two-step process’ for the entry of judgment against a party who fails to defend: first, the entry of a default, and second, the entry of a default judgment.” City of N.Y. v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114, 128 (2d Cir 2011) (quoting New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir.2005). Entry of default is appropriate where a “party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.” FED. R. CIV. P. 55(a). A defendant’s default constitutes “an admission of all well-pleaded allegations” against [it].” A&B Alt. Mktg. v. Int’l Quality Fruit Inc., 35 F.4th 913 (2d Cir. 2022); Mickalis Pawn Shop, 645 F.3d at 128 (“The first step, entry of a default, formalizes a judicial recognition that a defendant has, through its failure to defend the action, admitted liability to the plaintiff.”). Upon the satisfaction of the first step, the second step of Rule 55 must then be satisfied. “The second step, entry of a default judgment [pursuant to Rule 55(b)], converts the defendant’s admission of liability into a final judgment that terminates the litigation and awards the plaintiff any relief to which the court decides it is entitled, to the extent permitted by Rule 54(c).” Mickalis Pawn Shop, 645 F.3d at 128. When determining whether default judgment is warranted, the court reviews a plaintiff’s allegations to decide whether said allegations establish a defendant’s liability as a matter of law. See Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009); see also A&B Alt. Mktg. v. Int’l Quality Fruit Inc., 521 F. Supp. 3d 170, 175-76 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (“It is hornbook law that on a motion for default judgment, the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint pertaining to liability are accepted as true.” (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992))). Further, “[i]t is well-settled that on a motion for a default judgment, a defendant’s default does not constitute an admission as to the damages claimed in the complaint.” A&B Alt. Mktg., 521 F. Supp. 3d at 176 (citation omitted). Rather, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish entitlement to requested damages. See Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 1999); see also A&B Alt. Mktg., 521 F. Supp. 3d at 176 (same). “To determine damages, the court may conduct an inquest or it may rely on the affidavits and other documentary evidence provided by plaintiff, obviating the need for a hearing on damages.” A&B Alt. Mktg., 521 F. Supp. 3d at 176 (first citing FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2)(B); then citing Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 2 v. Moulton Masonry & Constr., LLC, 779 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2015)). II. Analysis A. Service of Process and Default As a threshold matter, the Court makes the following findings. The record reflects that proper service has been made on Defendant. (See ECF Nos. 13, 48-2.) As noted, review of the Case Docket establishes that no answer, motion or other appearance was filed by or on behalf of Defendant. (See Case Docket, in toto.) Further, the Clerk of Court properly entered notation of Defendant’s default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Entry of Default, ECF No. 46.) B. Liability 1. As to Breach of Contract “Under New York law,[3] to state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege: ‘(1) the existence of a contract, (2) performance by the party seeking recovery, (3) nonperformance by the other party, and (4) damages attributable to the breach.’” Henry v. Capital One, N.A., No. 21-CV-2281, 2022 WL 1105181, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2022) (quoting RCN Telecom Servs., Inc. v. 202 Ctr. St. Realty LLC., 156 F. App’x 349, 350-51 (2d Cir. 2005)). Here, Plaintiff’s allegations establish PPE Medical’s liability for breach of contract as a matter of law. (See generally, Am. Compl.
52-76.) First, the Company contracted with PPE Medical to purchase 2.9 million 501K nitrile medical gloves. (See id.
