MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDERI. INTRODUCTION On February 15, 2019, plaintiff Citizens Bank, N.A. (“Citizens”) filed this civil action against defendants Todd Krolak (“Todd”) and Michele Krolak (“Michele”) (collectively “defendants” or the “Krolaks”) for alleged breach of personal guarantees. Plaintiff alleges that defendants guaranteed the debts owed to it by Krolak Technology Management, LLC (“KTM”) and Krolak Technology Management of Syracuse, LLC (“KTMS”), that KTM and KTMS have defaulted on their obligations, and that defendants have failed to fulfill the guarantees and pay plaintiff for the amounts KTM and KTMS owe.Defendants have failed to appear or otherwise respond to the Complaint. Currently pending is plaintiff’s motion for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff seeks a judgment as to liability, damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The motion was considered on the basis of the submissions.II. BACKGROUNDA. The ComplaintCitizens Bank is a nationally-chartered bank with its principal place of business in Providence, Rhode Island. Compl. 2. KTM and KTMS are New York limited liability corporations. Id.
8, 9. Todd and Michele Krolak are individuals residing in Clifton Park, New York.1On May 9, 2018, KTM executed a Line of Credit to Term Promissory Note in favor of Citizens Bank in the original principal amount of $150,000.00 in connection with U.S. Small Business Administration Loan # 2503227002 (“SBA Loan # 2503227002″), also known as Citizens Bank Loan #8810047526-34. Id. 10. SBA Loan # 2503227002 is subject to and secured by an Unconditional Guarantee executed by Todd, dated May 9, 2018. Id. 11.On May 9, 2018, KTMS executed a Note in favor of Citizens Bank in the original principal amount of $355,000.00 in connection with U.S. Small Business Administration Loan # 25121870-05 (“SBA Loan # 25121870-05″), also known as Citizens Bank Loan #8810047525-34. Id. 12. SBA Loan # 25121870-05 is subject to and secured by an Unconditional Guarantee executed by Todd, dated May 9, 2018. Id. 13. SBA Loan # 25121870-05 is also subject to and secured by an Unconditional Guarantee executed by Michele, dated May 9, 2018. Id. 14.On May 9, 2018, KTMS executed a Line of Credit to Term Promissory Note in favor of Citizens Bank in the original principal amount of $50,000.00 in connection with U.S. Small Business Administration Loan # 2503237005 (“SBA Loan # 2503237005″), also known as Citizens Bank Loan #8810047525-26. Id. 15. SBA Loan # 2503237005 is subject to an secured by an Unconditional Guarantee executed by Todd, dated May 9, 2018. Id. 16. SBA Loan # 2503237005 is also subject to and secured by an Unconditional Guarantee executed by Michele Krolak, dated May 9, 2018. Id. 17.SBA Loan # 2503227002, SBA Loan # 25121870-05, and SBA Loan # 2503237005 are referred to collectively as the “Loans.” The Unconditional Guarantees executed by Todd to secure the Loans and by Michele to secure SBA Loan # 25121870-05 and SBA Loan # 2503237005 (collectively the “KTMS Loans”) are referred to collectively as the “Guarantees.”Each of the Guarantees provides, among other things, that the guarantor unconditionally guarantees payment to Citizens Bank of all amounts owing under each of the Loans, that the Guarantee remains in effect until the note is paid in full, and that the guarantor must pay all amounts due under the note upon written demand.2 Id. 20. Each of the Guarantees also provides that the guarantor will pay all expenses incurred by Citizens Bank to enforce the Guarantee, including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. 21.Citizens Bank alleges KTM and KTMS are in default of their obligations under the Loans for failure to make regularly scheduled payments of principal and/or interest. Id. 22. On November 9, 2018, plaintiff provided notice to KTM, KTMS, and the Krolaks that the Loans were in default and demanded payment of all amounts due and payable. Id. 23.As of the filing date of plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, the Loans remain in default and KTM, KTMS, nor the Krolaks have paid the amounts due under the Loans.B. Procedural HistoryPlaintiff commenced this action on February 15, 2019 seeking to enforce defendants’ obligations owed under the Guarantees and for all related damages. Summonses were issued as to defendants on February 19, 2019. Affidavits of service were filed on March 18, 2019, indicating service on both defendants had been completed on March 5, 2019. Defendants’ answers were due on March 26, 2019, but defendants failed to appear or answer. A Clerk’s Certificate of Default was requested on April 10, 2019 and issued the same day. Plaintiff then moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 seeking a judgment as to liability, damages, and attorneys’ fees, and costs.III. DISCUSSIONA. Default Judgment StandardGenerally, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides a two-step process that the Court must follow before it may enter a default judgment against a defendant.” United States v. Carpineta, No. 14-CV-0517, 2015 WL 500815, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2015) (Kahn, J.) (internal quotations omitted). “First, under Rule 55(a), when a party fails to plead or otherwise defend…the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “Second, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), upon request of the plaintiff, a default judgment may be entered by the clerk when (1) the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for a sum certain, (2) the plaintiff has submitted an affidavit of the amount due, and (3) the defendant has been defaulted for failure to appear.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).“When a default is entered, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all of the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint pertaining to liability.” Bravado Int’l Grp. Merch. Servs. v. Ninna, Inc., 655 F. Supp. 2d 177, 188 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992)). However, “before entering default judgment, the Court must review the Complaint to determine whether Plaintiff has stated a valid claim for relief.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Barnes, No. 3:16-CV-533, 2018 WL 6028050, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018) (Sannes, J.) (citing Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009)).B. LiabilityIn the absence of being made aware of any choice-of-law provision in the Loans or Guarantees, or any discussion by plaintiff on the issue of what law to apply in this diversity case, New York law will be applied.3 Under New York law, the elements of a prima facie case for breach of guarantee are: “(1) an absolute and unconditional guaranty, (2) the underlying debt, and (3) the guarantor’s failure to satisfy the unpaid debt.” Myers Indus., Inc. v. Schoeller Arca Sys., Inc., 171 F. Supp. 3d 107, 121 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).Plaintiff has pleaded facts sufficient to establish all of the elements of its breach of personal guarantee claims against defendants. The Complaint alleges that for each of the three Loans: (1) defendants, either Paul by himself, or both Paul and Michele, executed personal guarantees in which they absolutely and unconditionally guaranteed payment of KTM and KTMS’ debts to plaintiff; (2) KTM and KTMS owe plaintiff collectively $555,000.00 exclusive of interest, fees, or costs for the Loans to KTM and KTMS; and (3) defendants have failed to satisfy KTM and KTMS’ debt to plaintiff.Accordingly, taking the factual allegations in the Complaint as true, Citizens Bank has adequately stated its claims for breach of guarantee against the Krolaks. Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment on the first, second, and third causes of action will be granted. Damages must now be considered.C. Damages“[I]t is well established that ‘[w]hile a party’s default is deemed to constitute a concession of all well pleaded allegations of liability, it is not considered an admission of damages.’” Cement & Concrete Workers Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Metro Found. Contractors Inc., 699 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992). “There must be an evidentiary basis for the damages sought by plaintiff, and a district court may determine there is sufficient evidence either based upon evidence presented at a hearing or upon a review of detailed affidavits and documentary evidence.” Id. (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2)). A hearing is not necessary where the record contains detailed affidavits and documentary evidence that enables the Court to evaluate the proposed sum and determine an award of damages. See Tamarin v. Adam Caterers, Inc., 13 F.3d 51, 54 (2d Cir. 1993) (“Rule 55(b)(2) and relevant case law give district judges much discretion in determining when it is ‘necessary and proper’ to hold an inquest on damages.”); FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2) (“The court may conduct hearings…when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: (A) conduct an accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter.”).In support of its application for an award of damages, plaintiff relies on: (1) the affirmation of its attorney, who fails to set forth the basis for any personal knowledge of the damages in question; refers to its Local Rule 55.2(a) Statement for a recitation of the amounts due; and states that “the amounts shown in the accompanying Statement are justly due and owing and no part has been paid except as set forth in the Statement”; and (2) unauthenticated, redacted copies of the balances due. Fenlon Affirm.,
