Opinion

Avail 1 LLC v. Latief

Court
District Court, E.D. New York
Filed
Sep 21, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.5%

“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”

How later courts described this case

  • “Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------x

AVAIL 1 LLC,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

17-CV-05841 (FB) (VMS)

-against-

FATAMA LATIEF and NEW YORK

CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

BOARD,

Defendants.

----------------------------------------------x

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Scanlon issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommending that this Court (i) order the foreclosure and sale of 111-36 178th

Street, Jamaica, New York (“Property”) and appoint a referee to conduct the sale

under conditions set out in the proposed Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale1; (ii) enter

a default judgment for damages against Defendant Latief in favor of the Plaintiff for

$826,610.87 as of April 18, 2019, with interest awarded at $89.27/day from April

19, 2019 through December 31, 2019, and at $89.03/day from January 1, 2020 until

the date of judgment; (iii) deny Plaintiff’s motion as against Defendant ECB; and

(iv) to reform the mortgage to include the legal description of the Property provided

1 No later than 21-days from the date of this Memorandum & Order, Plaintiff

is to submit a letter via ECF proposing three referees, with a brief description for

each referee’s qualifications. See R&R at 15.

by Plaintiff in Exhibit A to the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1 p. 2) and reflecting pre-

existing legal descriptions of Lot 23, Block 10294 in Queens, New York. R&R at

18–19.

The R&R advised that objections were due within fourteen days and warned

that “[f]ailure to file objections within fourteen (14) days will preclude further

review of this report and recommendation either by the District Court or Court of

Appeals.” R&R at 20. The R&R was filed on August 14, 2020 and mailed to

Defendants on August 18, 2020. Objections to the R&R were due September 2.

To date no objections have been filed.

Where clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object,

and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review.

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc.,

313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the

consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation

operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”). The

Court will, however, excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it

appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v.

Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000).

2

No error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R. Accordingly,

the Court adopts it without de novo review and enters judgment in accordance

therewith.

SO ORDERED.

_/S/ Frederic Block___________

FREDERIC BLOCK

Senior United States District Judge

Brooklyn, New York

September 21, 2020

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.