CIT Bank, N.A. v. Dambra et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING 31 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 18 ) is granted in part and denied in part, in accordance with the recommendations listed herein. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 11/16/2015. (Barrett, C)

I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------x
CIT BANK, N.A.,formerly known as One West
Bank, NA.,
Plaintiff,

FILL

IN CLERKS OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.NX

* NOV20 2015 *
BROOKLYN OFFICE
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

-against-

1 4-CV-395 1 (SLT)(VMS)
LEE DAMBRA, DANIELLE COFFEY, NEW
YORK CITY TRANSIT ADJUDICATION
BUREAU, NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL BOARD, NEW YORK CITY
PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU and JOHN
DOE, being fictitious and unknown to Plaintiff,
intended to be tenants, occupants, persons, or
corporations having or claiming an interest in or
lien encumbering the property described in the
Complaint or their heirs at law, distributes,
executors, administrators, trustees, guardians,
assignees, creditors, or successors,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------- x
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
In this mortgage foreclosure action, Plaintiff CIT Bank, N.A. ("Plaintiff'), formerly
known as OneWest Bank, N.A., brought suit against Defendants Lee Dambra and Danielle
Coffey, owners of a property located at 82 Holly Avenue, Staten Island (the "Property"), for
foreclosure on a Note secured by a mortgage on the Property. Plaintiff also named as defendants
New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, New York Environmental Control Board, New
York City Parking Violations Bureau, and a John Doe defendant. The action was commenced
on June 25, 2014 and executed summonses were returned for all defendants except John Doe.
When none of the defendants served an answer or otherwise appeared, Plaintiff requested a
Certificate of Default, which was entered by the Clerk on Aug. 18, 2014. Plaintiffs subsequent

Motion for Default Judgment was flied on Dec. 11, 2014, and was referred to Magistrate Judge
Vera Scanlon for a Report and Recommendation.
On September 25, 2015, Judge Scanlon issued her Report and Recommendation (the
"R&R"), recommending that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment be granted in part and
denied in part, and specifically recommending that:
1. Plaintiff's requests for foreclosure and sale of the property, and for appointment of a
referee be granted;
2. Judgment be entered against Mr. Dambra in the amount of $459,012.77 plus interest at a
rate of $18.1 0 per diem accruing after September 25, 2015, which includes $457,529.64
on the Note plus per diem interest for all dates up to and including September 25, 2015;
$90.00 for attorneys' fees; and $1,393.13 in costs;
3. Within seven days of the adoption of the R&R, Plaintiff be required to propose three
referees by letter to the court, with a brief description of their qualifications and a
proposed appointment order, as well as a revised proposed order of foreclosure and sale;
4. Plaintiff's motion as to the Environmental Control Board and Parking Bureau be
construed as against the City;
5. Plaintiff's motion as to Ms. Coffey, the Environmental Control Board and the Parking
Bureau be granted;
6. Plaintiff's motion as to the Transit Bureau be denied;
7. Plaintiff's claims against defendant John Doe be dismissed;
8. And Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1 be excused.
(R&R, Sept. 2, 2015, Doc. 31, at 19-20.) The R&R further stated that written objections must
be filed within 14 days of service of the R&R, and that "failure to file objections within the
specified time waives the right to appeal any order or judgment entered based on" the R&R.
(Id., at 21.) The time to file objections has now passed and no objections have been filed.

A district court is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of a magistrate

2

judge as to those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed.
See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nonetheless, when no objections are filed, many
courts seek to satisfy themselves "that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note (1983 Addition); see also Edwards v. Town of

Huntington, No. 05 Civ. 339 (NGG) (AKT), 2007 WL 2027913, at *2 (E..D.N.Y. July 11, 2007).
Accordingly, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error on the face of the record. The
Court finds no clear error, and therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Magistrate Judge Scanlon's Report and Recommendation
dated Sept. 25, 2015, is adopted in its entirety. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment (Doc. 18) is granted in part and denied in part, in accordance with the
recommendations listed above. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter
judgment accordingly and close this case.

T.TI,J*I 3W

/
Dated:Th7Ve*6c4 /, 2015
Brooklyn, New York

3

/s/ Sandra L . Townes
SANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge