Empire Community Development, LLC v. Larsen et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION. For the reasons stated in the attached, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Dunst's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), ECF No. 20 in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. The Court grants the Motion for Default Judgment with respect to liability and extinguishes the Defendants' interests in the property located at 16 Thomas Street in Coram, New York (the &quo t;Subject Property"). The Court denies the Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice with respect to Plaintiff's requests for the foreclosure and sale of the Subject Property, other damages, costs, and appointment of a referee. Plaintiff may file a renewed Motion for Default Judgment addressing the deficiencies discussed in the R&R by July 1, 2024. Ordered by Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury on 6/3/2024. (ASB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Empire Community Development, LLC,
Plaintiff,
2:23-cv-05896
(NJC) (LGD)

-vBrian K. Larsen et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY, United States District Judge:
On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff Empire Community Development, LLC filed a Motion
for Default Judgment. (Mot., ECF No. 19.) On April 23, 2024, Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst
issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default Judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (R&R, ECF No. 20.) A copy of the R&R
was provided to all counsel via ECF. (See Elec. Order, Apr. 23, 2024.) The R&R instructed that
any objections to the R&R must be submitted in writing to the Clerk of Court within fourteen
(14) days, i.e., by May 7, 2024. (R&R at 11.) The date for filing any objections has thus expired,
and no Defendant has filed an objection to the R&R. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R in its entirety, and grants in part and denies in part
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment.
In reviewing a report and recommendation of a Motion for Default Judgment, “the
district court may accept, reject, or modify its findings and recommendations in whole or in
part.” Nevelskiy v. Advanced Pro. Grp., Inc., No. 23-CV-2364 (KAM) (JAM), 2024 WL
2745190, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2024) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). Where no timely objection is filed, the Court must only determine whether the R&R is

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a);
Nevelskiy, 2024 WL 2745190 at *1.
Having conducted a review of the motion papers and the applicable law, and having
reviewed the R&R de novo, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations contained in the
well-reasoned and thorough R&R in their entirety. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and
denies in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. The Court grants the Motion for Default
Judgment with respect to liability and extinguishes Defendants’ interests in the property located
at 16 Thomas Street in Coram, New York (the “Subject Property”). The Court denies the Motion
for Default Judgment without prejudice with respect to Plaintiff’s requests for the foreclosure
and sale of the Subject Property, other damages, costs, and appointment of a referee. Plaintiff
may file a renewed Motion for Default Judgment addressing the deficiencies discussed in the
R&R by July 1, 2024.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
June 3, 2024
________/s Nusrat J. Choudhury_______
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY
United States District Judge

2