But it is not clear how the $372 interest figure was derived; a calculation set forth in a footnote in her brief suggests that it represents an attempt to calculate interest on the cost of the GAP throughout the 54-month term of the contract, ECF No. 11-1 at 21, but there are two problems with this. First, I can find no evidence in the record - and for damages on a default judgment a plaintiff must submit evidence and may not rely on her allegations, Narula v. Jackson, 2019 WL 1177856 *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2019 (citing cases) - that she has actually incurred those interest charges to date or, for that matter, that she is still paying on the contract. Her affidavit does not address this, and Munoz does not point to any other evidence that does. (The record does include a December 1, 2018 authorization for electronic monthly deductions from Munoz's checking account, ECF No. 11-6, but it is not clear whether these deductions are continuing and, if they are, how much interest she has paid to date on the GAP charge.)