40-46 Main Street Realty Corp. et al v. The City of New York et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. See attached. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. Ordered by Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr on 1/10/2018. (Figeroux, Davina)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------X 40-46 MAIN STREET REALTY CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, 16 CV 6900 (SJ) (SJB) -against- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------X APPEARANCES KEVIN K.TUNG 136-20 38th Avenue Suite 3D Flushing, NY 11354 By: Kevin K. Tung Attorney for Plaintiffs OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL 100 Church Street Room 3-118 New York, NY 10007 By: William H. Vidal Attorneys for Defendant City of New York and New York City Housing Preservation and Development PECKAR & ABRAMSON 41 Madison Avenue 20th Floor New York, NY 10010 By: Howard M. Rosen Attorneys for Monadnock Development LLC JOHNSON, Senior District Judge: 1 Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara. Judge Bulsara issued the Report on November 27, 2017, and provided the parties with the requisite amount of time to file any objections. Neither party filed any objections to the Report. For the reasons stated herein, this Court affirms and adopts the Report in its entirety. A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and a recommendation as to the disposition of the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 10 days of service of the recommendation, any party may file written objections to the magistrate’s report. See id. Upon de novo review of those portions of the record to which objections were made, the district court judge may affirm or reject the recommendations. See id. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal this Court=s Order. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Small v. Sec=y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989). In this case, objections to Magistrate Judge Bulsara=s recommendations were due on December 11, 2017. No objections to the Report were filed with this Court. Upon review of the recommendations, this Court adopts and affirms Magistrate 2 Judge Bulsara’s Report in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 10, 2018 Brooklyn, NY _________/s/___________________ Sterling Johnson, Jr., U.S.D.J. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?