Barbara S. Parrett Family Partnership, Ltd. v. Quantum Realty Development, Inc. et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation 23 without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the Report and Recommendation: 1) the granting of Plaintiff s Motion 20 for Default Judgment be granted against Defendants jointly and severally totaling $428,541.03 in damages, which is comprised of $300,000.00 of unpaid principal, $109,306.13 of unpaid interest through September 27, 2023, and $19,234.90 in paid property taxes; (2) ordering the Foreclosure and Sale of the Property; and (3) appointing a referee to sell the mortgage premises. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 4/1/2024. (MI)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BARBARA S. PARRETT FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP, LTD.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:23-cv-04077-FB-ST

-againstQUANTUM REALTY DEVELOPMENT,
INC., WILLIAM SANTOPIETRO, FULL
VALUE CAPITAL LLC, TOP OF THE
LINE PLUMBING & HEATING CORP.,
and WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, “JOHN
DOE #1” through and including “JOHN DOE
#25,” the defendants last named in quotation
marks being intended to designate tenants or
occupants in possession of the herein
described premises or portions thereof, if any
there be, said names being fictitious, their true
name being unknown to plaintiff,
Defendants.
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
MICHAEL JOSEPH ROMANO
Romano & Associates
350 Old Country Road, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530

1

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
On February 29, 2024, Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione issued a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff Barbara S. Parrett
Family Partnership, Ltd.’s (“Parrett”) motion for a default judgment of foreclosure
and sale be granted. Parrett filed this action to foreclose a mortgage on real
property pursuant to section 1301, et seq., of the New York Real Property Actions
and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) against Defendants Quantum Realty
Development, Inc. (“Quantum”), William Santopietro (“Santopietro”), and Top of
the Line Plumbing & Heating Corp. (“Top of the Line”), individually, (collectively
“Defendants”).
Defendants were served with a Summons and Complaint but never answered
or responded to the Complaint. The Clerk entered a default against Defendants on
August 29, 2023. Magistrate Judge Tiscione found that all service and procedural
requirements had been satisfied and that the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s
Complaint stated valid claims sufficient for this Court to enter a default judgment.
On liability, Magistrate Tiscione found that by not answering Plaintiff’s
Complaint or otherwise defending this action, Defendants have failed to rebut
Plaintiff’s prima facie showing that Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of
foreclosure and sale. Accordingly, he recommended: (1) the granting of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Default Judgment be granted against Defendants jointly and severally

2

totaling $428,541.03 in damages, which is comprised of $300,000.00 of unpaid
principal, $109,306.13 of unpaid interest through September 27, 2023, and
$19,234.90 in paid property taxes; (2) ordering the Foreclosure and Sale of the
Property; and (3) appointing a referee to sell the mortgage premises. However,
Magistrate Tiscione recommended denying Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees.
Magistrate Tiscione’s R&R stated that failure to object within fourteen days
of the date of the R&R waives the right to appeal, precluding further review either
by this Court or the Court of Appeals. No objections were filed. If clear notice has
been given of the consequences of failing to object and there are no objections, the
Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See Smith v. Campbell, 782
F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the
consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate's report and recommendation
operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”)
(internal citations omitted). The Court will excuse the failure to object and
conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed
plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F.3d
162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000). No such error appears here.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and directs
the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the R&R: 1) the granting of
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment be granted against Defendants jointly and

3

severally totaling $428,541.03 in damages, which is comprised of $300,000.00 of
unpaid principal, $109,306.13 of unpaid interest through September 27, 2023, and
$19,234.90 in paid property taxes; (2) ordering the Foreclosure and Sale of the
Property; and (3) appointing a referee to sell the mortgage premises.
SO ORDERED.
_/S/ Frederic Block____________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
April 1, 2024

4