Opinion

Freedom Mortgage Corporation v. Abass

Court
District Court, E.D. New York
Filed
Mar 20, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 34.5%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

-against-

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

SEETA ABASS, ACCEL CAPITAL, SUPERIOR

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

CAPITAL d/b/a COOPER ASSET, KEYBANK

22-CV-5577 (CBA) (JRC)

NA, NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL

CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY

PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, and NEW

YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION

BUREAU,

Defendants.

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

AMON, United States District Judge:

On September 20, 2022 Plaintiff brought this foreclosure action against defendants Seeta

Abass , Accel Capital, Superior Capital d/b/a Cooper Asset, Keybank NA, New York City

Environmental Control Board (“ECB”), New York City Parking Violations Bureau (“PVB”) and

New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau (“TAB”) (collectively “Defendants”) pursuant to

New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”), Article 13. (ECF Docket

Entry (“D.E.”) # 1.)1 Since the commencement of this litigation, Defendants have failed to make

an appearance or otherwise respond to the complaint. Defendants have been properly served all

required papers. (D.E. ## 11, 13.)

On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a request for an entry of default, which the Clerk

of the Court granted on January 12, 2023. (D.E. ## 14, 15.) To date, Defendants have not

responded to this action.

1 Plaintiff’s complaint also named as defendants “John Doe #1” through “John Doe #10”; Plaintiff has since dismissed

its claims against those defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (D.E. # 18.)

On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff moved for default judgment (D.E. # 19), and I referred that

motion to the Honorable James R. Cho, United States Magistrate Judge, for report and

recommendation. (Text order dated March 13, 2023.) Magistrate Judge Cho recommended

denying Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice, citing deficiencies with satisfying certain

requirements under the RPAPL and Plaintiff’s damages request. (See generally D.E. # 27.)

Plaintiff subsequently withdrew its motion. (D.E. # 30.)

On March 21, 2024, Plaintiffs again moved for default judgment (D.E. # 31), and I referred

that motion to Magistrate Judge Cho for report and recommendation. (Text order dated

March 21, 2024.) On December 10, 2024, Magistrate Judge Cho held a hearing on Plaintiff’s

motion and ordered Plaintiff to supplement its motion to address any liens in favor of ECB, TVB,

and TAB. (Minute entry dated Dec. 10, 2024.) Plaintiff subsequently supplemented its motion as

to ECB and TVB, but not TAB. (D.E. # 38.) On March 3, 2025, Magistrate Judge Cho issued a

report and recommendation. (D.E. # 40 (“R&R”).)

When deciding whether to adopt an R&R, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). To accept those portions of the R&R to which no timely objection has been made,

“a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.”

Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund, L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Wilds v.

United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). No party has objected to the

R&R, and the time for doing so has passed. Because I do not find clear error in Magistrate Judge

Cho’s thorough R&R, I adopt it in full.

CONCLUSION

As set forth above, □ adopt Magistrate Judge Cho’s R&R in full. Accordingly, I order the

foreclosure and sale of the property located at 107-58 156th Street, Jamaica, New York; (2) I

appoint Stephanie 8. Goldstone, Esq. as referee to conduct the foreclosure and sale; (3) Plaintiff

shall be awarded the principal balance of $401,488.46; (4) Plaintiff shall be awarded $73,128.00

in interest from September 1, 2019 through March 20, 2024, plus additional interest at a rate of

$44.00 per day from March 21, 2024 until the entry of judgment; (5) Plaintiff shall be awarded

$1,453.40 in late charges; (6) Plaintiff shall be awarded $65,452.29 in escrow advances and

inspection costs; and (7) Plaintiff shall be awarded $2,825.00 in attorneys’ fees and $1,773.05 in

costs. Plaintiff is directed to file a revised proposed judgment of foreclosure and sale consistent

with this Order.

Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against TAB is denied, and the Clerk of Court is

respectfully directed to vacate the default entered against TAB. On or before April 15, 2025,

Plaintiff shail file a letter stating whether it intends to voluntarily dismiss its claims against TAB

or, if not, how it intends to proceed.

SO ORDERED.

: March! 7, 2025

pace March New York S/Carol Bagley Amon ----u~

United States District Judge

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.