Lexington Insurance Company v. Forte Security Group, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly (PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS), the August 31, 2017 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety, and the Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is granted as set forth above. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with this opinion, and to close this case. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 9/15/2017. (Ortiz, Grisel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY,

FILED 
CLERK 

9/15/2017 8:44 am

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

Plaintiff,
ORDER
16-cv-1674(ADS)(GRB)

-againstFORTE SECURITY GROUP,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
APPEARANCES:
Fabiani Cohen & Hall, LLP
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
570 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10022
By:
Jordan A. Meisner, Esq., Of Counsel
Ingber Law Firm, PLLC
Attorneys for the Defendant
50 Main Street, Suite 1000
White Plains, NY 10606 07932
By:
Clifford J. Ingber, Esq., Of Counsel
SPATT, District Judge:

On April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington” or the “Plaintiff”),
commenced this action against the Defendant Forte Security Group (“Forte” or the “Defendant”), seeking
to recover allegedly outstanding premium payments for two policies of insurance that Lexington issued
to Forte.
On May 25, 2016, attorney Clifford J. Ingber, Esq., appeared in this action on behalf of the
Defendant and requested an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
However, on June 27, 2016, the Defendant having not yet responded to the complaint, Mr. Ingber filed a
short letter to the Court, seeking to withdraw as counsel for Forte.
On June 28, 2016, this Court denied the motion to be relieved as counsel, noting that a
corporation, such as the Defendant, is not permitted to appear in federal court pro se. Nevertheless, the

1

Court extended Forte’s time to respond to the complaint, either by Mr. Ingber or newly-retained counsel,
for an additional 20 days, to July 18, 2016.
On July 22, 2016, after the Defendant failed to interpose an answer or other response to the
complaint, the Clerk of the Court noted its default.
On September 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a default judgment, which the Court
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown for a recommendation on the issues of liability
and damages. Despite appearing by counsel, the Defendant failed to respond to the motion for a default
judgment or otherwise participate in this action.
On August 31, 2017, Judge Brown issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending
that the Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment on its cause of action for breach of an insurance contract
be granted, and that the following damages be awarded: (1) $291,987 in principal; and (2) accrued
interest of $20,879.07 from November 30, 2015 through September 14, 2016.
On the same date that the R&R was issued, namely, August 31, 2017, copies were served on
counsel for both sides via the Court’s electronic filing system. More than fourteen days have elapsed, and
the Defendant has neither filed an objection nor requested an extension of time to do so.
Thus, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72, this Court has
reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result.
Accordingly, the August 31, 2017 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety, and the
Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment is granted as set forth above. The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed to enter judgment consistent with this opinion, and to close this case.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
September 15, 2017
/s/ Arthur D. Spatt____________________
ARTHUR D. SPATT
United States District Judge

2