Goldstein v. Urgo Eleuthera Hotels Ltd.

Filing 18

ADOPTION ORDER - The R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Defendant has thirty days from the date of this Order to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint. No further extensions will be granted. See Order for further details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/12/2016. (Coleman, Laurie)

Download PDF
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------X JEFFREY GOLDSTEIN Plaintiff, ADOPTION ORDER 14-cv-6395 (ADS) (ARL) -againstURGO ELEUTHERA HOTELS LTD. Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------X APPEARANCES: Forchelli Curto Deegan Schwartz Mineo Cohn & Terrana, LLP Attorneys for the Plaintiff 333 Earle Ovington Blvd, Suite 1010 Uniondale, NY 11553 By: Brian James Hufnagel, Esq. Andrew L. Crabtree, Esq. Attorney for the Defendant 225 Broadhollow Road, Suite 303 Melville, NY 11747 SPATT, District Judge. On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff Jeffrey Goldstein (the “Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Urgo Eleuthera Hotels, Ltd. (the “Defendant”) seeking damages under a promissory note. The Clerk of the Court noted the default of the Defendant on March 10, 2015. On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff moved for a default judgment, which the Court subsequently referred to United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for a report recommending whether a default judgment should be granted and if so, whether damages should be awarded. On April 1, 2015, the Defendants filed an affidavit in opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion and requested that the Court vacate the Clerk’s Certificate of Default. 1     On February 10, 2016, Judge Lindsay issued a report recommending that (i) the Plaintiff’s motion be denied; (ii) the Defendant’s motion to vacate the default be granted; and (iii) that the Defendant be given thirty days to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint (the “R&R”). More than fourteen days have elapsed since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the February 19, 2016 R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Defendant has thirty days from the date of this Order to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint. No further extensions will be granted. SO ORDERED. Dated: Central Islip, New York March 12, 2016 _/s/ Arthur D. Spatt__ ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge 2  

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?