The following papers efiled on NYSCEF were used on this motion: Doc No. 6: Plaintiff’s notice of motion Doc No. 7: Ryan Manigo affidavit in support of Plaintiff’s motion Doc No. 8: Exhibit A — promissory note Doc No. 9: Memorandum of law in support of Plaintiff’s motion Doc No. 10: Request for Judicial Intervention Doc No. 11: Affidavit of service of motion papers on Defendant Doc No. 13: Stipulation of adjournment of motion Doc No. 14: Stipulation of adjournment of motion Doc No. 15: Defendant’s notice of cross-motion Doc No. 16: David M. Harrison affirmation of good faith Doc No. 17: David M. Harrison affirmation in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and in support of Defendant’s cross-motion Doc No. 18: Exhibit 1 — summons and complaint Doc No. 19: Exhibit 2 — Defendant’s pro se answer Doc No. 20: Exhibit 3 — Defendant Desmond L. Patterson’s affidavit Doc No. 21: Exhibit 4 — Defendant’s proposed amended answer Doc No. 22: Exhibit 5 — Christopher Thomas’ and Felix Hernandez’s statements Doc No. 23: Exhibit 6 — Stipulations Doc No. 24: David M. Harrison affirmation of compliance with Rule 202.8-b Doc No. 25: David M. Harrison certification re generative artificial intelligence Doc No. 26: Affidavit of service of cross-motion papers Doc No. 27: Stipulation of adjournment of motions Doc No. 29: Stipulation of adjournment of motions Doc No. 30: Ryan Manigo affidavit in support of Plaintiff’s motion Doc No. 31: Memorandum of law in support of Plaintiff’s motion and in opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, having heard oral argument1, and due deliberation having been had, the within motions of the parties are determined as follows. Background This is an action commenced by Shari Schieber (“Plaintiff”), as executor of the Estate of the David Wishnick (“Decedent”), seeking judgment on a promissory note executed by Desmond L. Patterson (“Defendant”) in exchange for a $105,000 loan made by Decedent to Defendant on July 5, 2019. The note provided, among other things, that interest was at the rate of 12 percent per annum2, the loan would mature in one year, and payments of interest only in the amount of $1,050 were to be made monthly. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is in default on the note, owes the $105,000 principal, accrued interest (from July 15, 2019), and attorneys’ fees. (See generally NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc Nos. 8, promissory note; 18, complaint.) Defendant claims that he made certain payments aggregating approximately $50,000 (by check to Decedent’s real estate company and by cash to Decedent), that in 2022, Decedent agreed to release Defendant from having to pay off the note further in consideration for Decedent soliciting others to borrow money from Decedent, and that others did in fact enter into loan agreements with Decedent at Defendant’s behest (see generally NYSCEF Doc Nos. 19, pro se answer; 20, Patterson aff). Motions Before the Court are two motions. Motion Sequence No. 1 is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against Defendant in the amount of $105,000 plus default interest at 12 percent per annum from June 30, 2020; seeking a hearing on awarding her attorneys’ fees; and dismissing Defendant’s affirmative defenses (see NYSCEF Doc No. 6, notice of motion). Defendant’s cross-motion, Motion Sequence No. 2, seeks leave to amend his pro se answer, which inadvertently referred to Decedent as “Plaintiff,” inasmuch as Plaintiff herein is Decedent’s executrix and the individual who lent Defendant money and later forgave the remainder of payment due was Decedent (see NYSCEF Doc Nos. 15, notice of cross-motion; 21, proposed amended answer). Contentions For factual support of her motion for summary judgment against Defendant, Plaintiff relies on the promissory note and the affidavit and reply affirmation of Ryan Manigo. Ms. Manigo avers the following: She was the office manager retained initially by Decedent and now by Plaintiff (see NYSCEF Doc No. 7, Manigo aff 1). She is familiar with the facts and circumstances of the instant matter based on “facts known to me to be true” and her “review of the books and records maintained in connection with the subject promissory note” (id. 2). She has “personal knowledge” and “experience as the office manager of Plaintiff,” is “familiar[ ] with Plaintiff’s practices and procedures, [and] review[ed]…the custodial and business records of Plaintiff relating to the promissory note at issue, which are maintained by Plaintiff in the regular course of business” (id. 3). In terms of evidence, Ms. Manigo attested as follows: 4…. The records in Plaintiff’s possession, and submitted as part of this affidavit, include documents which Plaintiff generates in the ordinary course of its business operations (which include data complications3, electronically imaged documents, and others) that are made at or near the time by, or from information provided by, persons with knowledge of the activities and transactions reflected in such records, and are kept in the course of Plaintiff’s regularly conducted business activity. 5. In the regular course of its business, I, on behalf of Plaintiff, make records of the acts, transactions, events and occurrences regarding and pertaining to the private loans for which it is responsible. The record of each act, transaction, event or occurrence is made at the time of the act, transaction, event or occurrence or within a reasonable time thereafter. It is the regular practice of Plaintiff’s private loan business to record and track each loan that it services. … 16. Pursuant to the Note, the failure to pay the principal amount due on the Maturity Date of June 30, 2020 constitutes a default. Based on my personal knowledge, and my review of Plaintiff’s business records, Defendant has failed to pay the principal amount due and owing under the Note on or before the maturity date of June 30, 2020. … 19. I am advised that, in his answer, Defendant makes the unsupported allegation that he was assured that if he referred other borrowers to Plaintiff he would be released from the obligations under the Note. See Answer, NYSCEF Doc 5. at paras: 5-6. First, as the party who handled Plaintiff’s private loans, I categorically deny that any such agreement was made. 20. However, I am advised that, even if taken as true for the purposes of this motion, this claimed oral agreement is directly contradicted by the terms of the Note. This allegation that Plaintiff agreed to change the amounts due is defeated by and in direct contravention of the terms of the Note, which provides in paragraph 5 which prohibits “delays in due dates or changes in the amounts of monthly payments unless the Note Holder agrees in wiring to those delays or changes”. (Id.
