Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Everest Reinsurance Company, As Successor In Interest To New v. Prbk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


January 4, 2011

EVEREST REINSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY AND SUBROGEE OF EDWARD AND FRANK MARCIANO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PRBK, LLC DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Matsumoto, United States District Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Everest Reinsurance Company ("plaintiff"), as successor in interest to New Hampshire Insurance Company, brought this negligence action against defaulting defendant PRBK, LLC ("defendant"), alleging that damage sustained by property owned by Edward and Frank Marciano and insured by New Hampshire Insurance Company was caused by negligent excavation work performed by defendant on the property adjacent to the Marcianos'. (See generally ECF No. 1, Compl.) The Marcianos reached a settlement on their claim with New Hampshire Insurance Company, and plaintiff seeks reimbursement from the defendant of the insurance settlement, interest, and costs. Presently before the court is a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge Azrack on December 9, 2010, recommending that this court enter a default judgment against defendant in the amount of $523,690.88. (ECF No. 14, R&R, at 1-2.)

Notice of the Report and Recommendation was sent electronically to the parties appearing in the docket via the court's electronic filing system on December 10, 2010. The Report and Recommendation directed counsel for the plaintiff to serve a copy of the Report and Recommendation by certified mail on defendant and to promptly file a declaration of service with the court. (Id. at 7.) On December 15, 2010, plaintiff's counsel filed a declaration indicating service of the Report and Recommendation upon defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, on December 15, 2010. (ECF No. 15, Decl. of Service, dated Dec. 15, 2010.)

As explicitly noted at the end of the Report and Recommendation, any objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within fourteen days of receipt of the report. (ECF No. 14, R&R, at 7.) The statutory period for filing objections has expired, and no objections to Magistrate Judge Azrack's Report and Recommendation have been filed.

In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where no objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed, the district court "need only satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

Upon a review of the Report and Recommendation, and considering that the parties have failed to object to any of Magistrate Judge Azrack's thorough and well-reasoned recommendations, the court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Azrack's Report and Recommendation and hereby affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the court.

Counsel for plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order upon defendant and file a declaration of service by January 5, 2011. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter a default judgment against defendant in the amount of $523,690.88 and to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

Brooklyn, New York

Kiyo A. Matsumoto United States District Judge

20110104

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.