Plaintiff established prima facie that the parties' settlement agreement constituted an instrument for the payment of money only and that defendants defaulted by failing to make payment under its terms, pursuant to CPLR 3213. On its motion, plaintiff submitted the settlement agreement, the amount due, and an affirmation of its general counsel, who swore to the loan history under penalty of perjury and stated that he was familiar with the facts through his "review of the records and documents kept in the file maintained by [plaintiff] with respect to this matter." The settlement agreement, which was signed by plaintiff and defendants, provided that defendants owed $7,900,000 as of October 12, 2012; that the maturity date was October 12th, 2017, the fifth anniversary date of the settlement agreement; that the interest rate was 0% a year for the first 18 months and then 5% a year thereafter, without compounding interest; and that upon default, interest was to accrue at the rate of 12% per annum.
In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue as to a defense to the instrument. In light of defendants' express waiver of defenses in the loan agreement and their acknowledgement that their repayment obligation was unconditional, their potential counterclaims and affirmative defenses did not preclude CPLR 3213 relief. In addition, the settlement agreement specifies that default interest accrues on default and that payment is due on demand. The settlement agreement does not require that notice of demand be sent to the borrower.
LFR Collections, LLC. v. Tammy Tran Attorneys at Law, L.P., NY Slip Op 02852 (1st Dep't May 8, 2025)
