Allison Lending, LLC v. NLL Properties Incorporated et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------X
ALLISON LENDING, LLC,
Plaintiff, 	REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
-against- 	23 CV 9385 (PKC)(RML)
NLL PROPERTIES INCORPORATED, et al.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------X
LEVY, United States Magistrate Judge:
By order dated December 27, 2024, the Honorable Pamela K. Chen, United States
District Judge, referred plaintiff’s motion for default judgment of foreclosure and sale to me for
report and recommendation. For the reasons stated below, I respectfully recommend that
plaintiff’s motion be granted.
B ACKGROUND AND F ACTS
Plaintiff Allison Lending, LLC (“plaintiff”), a Delaware limited liability company
with a principal place of business in Florida, commenced this commercial mortgage foreclosure
action on December 20, 2023. (See Complaint, dated Dec. 20, 2023 (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1.)
All defendants were properly served with the summons and complaint. (See Affidavit of Service
of Calvin H. Chen, sworn to Jan. 18, 2024, Dkt. No. 10; Affidavits of Service of Laurance Knox,
sworn to Feb. 14, 2024, Dkt. Nos. 7, 8; Declaration of Danielle P. Light, Esq., dated Apr. 10,
2024 (“Light Decl.”), Dkt. No. 17-3, Ex. 2.) To date, no defendant has answered or moved with
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
respect to the complaint. On March 18, 2024, the Clerk of the Court issued a Certificate of
Default against all defendants.1 (See Certificate of Default, dated Mar. 18, 2024, Dkt. No. 15.)
Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on the mortgage encumbering the real property at
109-09 211th Street in Queens, New York and identified on the Queens County Tax Map as
Block 10922 Lot: 72 in the County of Queens and State of New York (the “Property”). (Compl.
¶ 1.) On August 16, 2022, defendant NLL Properties Incorporated (“NLL” or “Borrower”), a
New York corporation, executed and delivered to National Bank of New York City (the
“Lender”) a promissory note (the “Note”) evidencing a commercial loan in the principal amount
of $255,000 (the “Loan”). (See id. ¶¶ 3, 10, Ex. B; see also Affidavit of John Ramer, sworn to
Apr. 4, 2024 (“Ramer Aff.”), Dkt. No. 17-2, ¶ 6, Ex. A.) To secure the indebtedness under the
Note, Borrower duly executed, acknowledged, and delivered a mortgage to Lender (the
“Mortgage”) that encumbers the Property as collateral security for the Note. (Compl. ¶ 11, Ex.
C.) The mortgage was duly recorded in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York,
Queens County, on November 30, 2016 under City Register File No. 2022000338912. (Id. ¶ 12.)
On August 16, 2022, defendants Neville Lee and Chandra Lee (the “Guarantors”), both New
York citizens, each executed a Guaranty of Payment. (See id. ¶ 13, Ex. D.) On the same date,
the Guarantors also each signed a Confession of Judgment, admitting unconditional liability on
the Loan. (Id. ¶ 14, Ex. E.)
Plaintiff is the current owner of the Note by virtue of its physical possession of
the wet-ink Note. (Id. ¶ 16; Ramer Aff. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff was assigned the mortgage by assignment
1 Plaintiff originally named the City of New York Department of Finance and the State of New
York Department of Taxation and Finance as defendants. On January 2, 2025, plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed those defendants. (See Notice of Dismissal, dated Jan. 2, 2025, Dkt. No.
22.)
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
of mortgage dated November 21, 2023 and recorded in the Office of the City Register of the City
of New York in City Register File No: 2023120800229002. (Compl. ¶ 16, Ex. F.) Therefore,
plaintiff is the holder and owner of both the Note and Mortgage. (See id., Exs. B and C.)
NLL defaulted under the terms of the Note and Mortgage by failing to pay the
balance due when the Loan matured on August 31, 2023. (See id. ¶ 17, Exs. B and C; Ramer
Aff. ¶ 12.) The Guarantors also defaulted under the terms of the Note by failing to pay the
balance due when the Loan matured on August 31, 2023. (See Compl. ¶ 18, Ex. B; Ramer Aff. ¶
13.) Under the terms and conditions of the Note and Mortgage, the unpaid principal balance is
$255,000, plus interest, costs, fees and charges that apply pursuant to the Mortgage. (Compl. ¶
19; Ramer Aff. ¶ 16, Ex. F.)
DISCUSSION
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
“[B]efore deciding any case,” the court must “assure [itself] that the case is
properly within [its] subject-matter jurisdiction.” Landau v. Eisenberg, 922 F.3d 495, 497 (2d
Cir. 2019) (first alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Bond, 762 F.3d 255, 263 (2d Cir.
2014)). “A plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that it exists.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d
Cir. 2000); see also Landau, 922 F.3d at 497. Here, plaintiff pleads subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Compl. ¶ 8), which grants a federal court diversity jurisdiction
over, inter alia, civil actions “between . . . citizens of different States” where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Plaintiff is a limited liability company, or LLC. For diversity purposes, an LLC
“takes the citizenship of each of its members.” Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Cap. Mgmt. LLC, 692 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Handelsman v. Bedford Vill. Assocs.
Ltd. P’ship, 213 F.3d 48, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2000)). “Thus, if a party to a diversity action is an LLC,
the party seeking to invoke the court’s diversity jurisdiction must identify both the LLC’s
members and their citizenship.” 136-61 Roosevelt LLC v. Starbucks Corp., No. 21 CV 3560,
2021 WL 2779287, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2021).
According to plaintiff’s Corporate Disclosure Statement, the sole member of
Allison Lending, LLC is Yonel Devico, who is “a citizen of and domiciled in the State of
Florida.” (Corporate Disclosure Statement, dated Dec. 20, 2023, Dkt. No. 2.) 	I therefore find
that there is complete diversity of citizenship, and that this court has subject matter jurisdiction
over this matter.
B. Default Judgment Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 imposes “a two-step process for obtaining a
default judgment.” Priestley v. Headminder, Inc., 647 F.3d 497, 504 (2d Cir. 2011). First, if a
defendant fails to appear, the plaintiff must obtain an entry of default by the Clerk of the Court.
Id. (citing FED . R. C IV . P. 55(a)). Second, once default is entered against the non-responsive
defendant, the plaintiff “must apply to the court for a default judgment.” FED . R. C IV . P.
55(b)(2). Plaintiff has satisfied these requirements.
On consideration of a motion for default judgment, the court “is required to accept
all of the [plaintiff’s] factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor[.]”
Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79, 84 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect, Inc.,
653 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1981)). “Nevertheless, it remains for the court to consider whether the
unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not admit
conclusions of law.” Payamps v. M & M Convenience Deli & Grocery Corp., No. 16 CV 4895,
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
2019 WL 8381264, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) (citation omitted). If the complaint suffices to
establish liability, the court must “conduct an inquiry . . . to ascertain the amount of damages
with reasonable certainty.” Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d
Cir. 1999). “The plaintiff bears the burden of presenting proof of damages, which may take the
form of documentary evidence or detailed affidavits.” Sanchez v. Ms. Wine Shop Inc., 643 F.
Supp. 3d 355, 365 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) (quoting Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Benitez, No. 18 CV
6476, 2020 WL 5519200, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020), report and recommendation adopted,
2020 WL 5517240 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020)); see also Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., 951
F.2d 504, 508 (2d Cir. 1991).
Local Civil Rule 7.1 requires that all motions include a notice of motion, a
memorandum of law, and supporting affidavits or exhibits containing any necessary factual
information and portions of the record necessary for the court to decide the motion. Loc. Civ. R.
7.1. In addition, under Local Civil Rule 55.2, a party seeking a default judgment must file a
proposed order and a certificate of service stating that all supporting documents “have been
personally served on, or mailed to the last known residence (for an individual defendant) or
business address (for other defendants) of, the party against whom default judgment is sought.”
Loc. Civ. R. 55.2(a)(2)–(3). Plaintiff has complied with these procedural requirements. (See
Notice of Motion, dated Apr. 10, 2024, Dkt. No. 17-1; Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law, dated
Apr. 10, 2024 (“Pl.’s Mem.”), Dkt. No. 17; Affirmation of Service of Elliot Brand, dated Apr. 11,
2024, Dkt. No. 18; Ramer Aff.; Light Decl.; Proposed Judgment, Dkt. No. 17-4.)
C. Standing
Since plaintiff is not an original party to the Note, I will briefly address plaintiff’s
standing to bring this foreclosure action. “Under New York law, ‘[a] plaintiff establishes its
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
standing in a mortgage foreclosure action by demonstrating that, when the action was
commenced, it was either the holder or assignee of the underlying note.’” E. Sav. Bank, FSB v.
Thompson, 631 F. App’x 13, 15 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order) (quoting Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. v. Rooney, 19 N.Y.S.3d 543, 544 (2d Dep’t 2015)). So long as the Note is transferred
through physical delivery or a written assignment before the foreclosure action is commenced,
“the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident.” Thompson, 631 F. App’x at 15
(quoting U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 890 N.Y.S.2d 578, 580 (2d Dep’t 2009)); see also
Lasalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ahearn, 875 N.Y.S.2d 595, 597 (3d Dep’t 2009) (“[A]n assignee of
such a mortgage does not have standing to foreclose unless the assignment is complete at the
time the action is commenced.”). The execution date is controlling as an effective date of the
assignment when the assignment is in writing. Lasalle Bank, 875 N.Y.S.2d at 597.
Plaintiff states that it has owned and maintained possession of the Note since
November 21, 2023. (See Ramer Aff. ¶ 7; Compl. ¶ 16.) In support of its motion, plaintiff has
filed copies of the Note, the Mortgage, and the assignment that gave plaintiff possession. (See
Ramer Aff., Exs. A-C.) Plaintiff has therefore submitted sufficient documentation to demonstrate
that it has standing to bring this action. See Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Taylor, 34 N.E.3d 363,
366 (N.Y. 2015) (“[T]he note . . . is the dispositive instrument that conveys standing to foreclose
under New York law. . . . [T]he note was transferred to [plaintiff] before the commencement of
the foreclosure action—that is what matters.”)
D. Notice
“As a general matter, in New York a lender is not required to notify a borrower of
its default on a mortgage prior to foreclosure, absent a statutory requirement or a contractual
provision in the relevant loan documents.” NuBridge Com. Lending REO SPV I Inc. v. KA & B
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Props., Inc., No. 22 CV 1468, 2023 WL 11261908, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2023) (citing HPHD
Invs. Grp., LLC v. Ioannou, 137 N.Y.S.3d 484, 486 (2d Dep’t 2020)), report and
recommendation adopted sub nom., NuBridge Com. Lender REO SPV I Inc. v. KA & B Props.,
Inc., 2024 WL 1364321 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2024). New York Real Property Actions and
Proceedings Law (“N.Y. R.P.A.P.L.”) § 1304 requires a lender to provide a ninety-day pre-
foreclosure notice of a mortgage default, and R.P.A.P.L § 1306 requires that, within three days of
sending a notice under R.P.A.P.L. § 1304, the lender, assignee, or mortgage loan servicer file
with the superintendent of financial services certain information concerning the mortgage loan.
See N.Y. R.P.A.P.L §§ 1304, 1306. However, since this is a commercial mortgage and not a
home loan, plaintiff was not required to serve a ninety-day pre-foreclosure notice or file
information with the superintendent of financial services. See N.Y. R.P.A.P.L. § 1304(1)
(“[W]ith regard to a home loan, at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage
loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower, or borrowers at the property address
and any other address of record, including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or
mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower[.]”) (emphasis added); see also Great
Normandy LLC v. 4 Queens Homes Inc., No. 22 CV 1624, 2023 WL 11845610, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 28, 2023) (“Since this is a commercial and not a residential loan, the 90-day Notices
required by Section 1304(1) of the RPAPL were not required.”); Teves Realty Corp v. Terry, No.
14 CV 3226, 2021 WL 3912297, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2021) (stating that Ҥ 1304 applies only
to a ‘home loan’ ” and not to a note secured by commercial property); Secured Asset Mgmt.,
LLC v. Cong. Beth Joseph Zwi Dushinsky, No. 17 CV 5588, 2019 WL 4861411, at *6 (E.D.N.Y.
Sept. 30, 2019) (stating that “§ 1304 . . . applies only to residential loans”), aff’d sub nom.,
Secured Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Dushinsky, 828 F. App’x 815 (2d Cir. 2020); B & H Fla. Notes
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
LLC v. Ashkenazi, 51 N.Y.S.3d 59, 59 (1st Dep’t 2017) (“RPAPL 1306 is [ ] inapplicable[,]
[because] [t]hat statute is triggered by RPAPL 1304, which applies only to a ‘home loan.’”).
In addition, the Mortgage states that “the Debt shall without notice become
immediately due and payable at the option of Mortgagee if any payment required herein is not
paid when due or on the happening of any ‘Event of Default.’” (Mortgage, annexed to the
Ramer Aff. as Ex. B, at 3 (emphasis added)). Accordingly, plaintiff was not required to notify
Borrower of the default.
E. 	Foreclosure and Sale
Under New York Law, a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action may establish a
prima facie case by producing evidence that demonstrates the existence of a mortgage, a note,
and proof of default on the note. Windward Bora LLC v. Valente, No. 18 CV 4302, 2019 WL
3872853, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 16, 2019) (“Under New York law, a plaintiff seeking to foreclose
upon a mortgage must demonstrate ‘the existence of the mortgage and mortgage note, ownership
of the mortgage, and the defendant’s default in payment’ on the loan secured by the mortgage.”)
(quoting Gustavia Home, LLC v. Bent, 321 F. Supp. 3d 409, 414 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)). Once the
prima facie case has been established, “[t]he burden then shifts to the defendant[s] to raise a
triable issue of fact, including with respect to any alleged defenses or counterclaims.” Bent, 321
F. Supp. 3d at 414-15 (citing Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Olasov, 793 N.Y.S.2d 52, 52 (2d Dep’t 2005)).
Plaintiff has established the common law elements required for prima facie
entitlement to a foreclosure judgment. See Valente, 2019 WL 3872853, at *3 (enumerating the
common law elements). First, plaintiff has submitted copies of the Note and Mortgage. (See
Ramer Aff., Exs. A and B.) Second, plaintiff has established ownership of the Note by showing
that it was assigned to plaintiff on November 21, 2023. (Id. ¶ 7, Ex. C.) Third, plaintiff has
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
established that NLL defaulted on the Note secured by the Mortgage by failing to pay the
balance due when the Loan matured on August 31, 2023. (Id. ¶ 12; Compl. ¶ 17.) In addition,
the Guarantors defaulted under the terms of the Note, Mortgage, and Guaranty by failing to pay
the balance due when the Loan matured. (Ramer Aff. ¶ 13, Ex. D; Compl. ¶ 18.) Defendants
have not appeared in this action to present any defenses or counterclaims. Therefore, I find that
plaintiff has established a presumptive right to foreclose on the Property and I respectfully
recommend that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be granted.
F. 	Damages
A party’s default “is not considered an admission of damages.” Cement &
Concrete Workers Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Metro Found. Contractors Inc., 699 F.3d 230,
234 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). On a motion for default judgment, a court “must instead
conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the amount of damages with reasonable certainty.”
Credit Lyonnais Sec. (USA), Inc. v. Alcantara, 183 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 1999). “There must be
an evidentiary basis for the damages sought by plaintiff, and a district court may determine there
is sufficient evidence either based upon evidence presented at a hearing or upon a review of
detailed affidavits and documentary evidence.” Cement & Concrete Workers Dist. Council
Welfare Fund, 699 F.3d at 234 (citing FED . R. C IV . P. 55(b)(2)); Fustok v. ContiCommodity
Servs., Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989). The note and mortgage, as the governing
instruments, should determine any default damages. Builders Bank v. Rockaway Equities, LLC,
No. 08 CV 3575, 2011 WL 4458851, at *5 (E.D.NY. Sept. 23, 2011). A party can substantiate
damages by providing a “transaction history or detailed breakdown of the date and amount of
each type of disbursement.” Empire Cmty. Dev., LLC v. Larsen, No. 23 CV 5896, 2024 WL
4575290, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2024) (citation omitted) (finding plaintiff’s loan summary
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
“that ke[pt] a running total of payments through” the date of defendant’s last payment paired
with detailed interest calculations sufficient to establish damages amount), report and
recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 327985 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2025).
Plaintiff seeks a judgment of foreclosure and sale in the amount of $255,000, plus
interest from August 1, 2023 to September 1, 2023 at the Note rate of twelve percent, and from
September 1, 2023 through the date of judgment at the default rate of twenty-four percent.
(Ramer Aff. at 6; Note at 1, 4, 15 (setting interest rates).) Plaintiff has provided the Borrower’s
payment history, showing the principal balance. (See Ramer Aff., Ex. F.) This is sufficient to
establish the amount due. E. Sav. Bank, FSB v. Beach, No. 13 CV 341, 2014 WL 923151, at
*10-11 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2014) (awarding plaintiff amount requested where plaintiff provided
the defendants’ payment history). As of April 4, 2024, the total amount due under the Note was
$297,041.18, which includes principal of $255,000; $39,100 in interest; $2,686.18 in insurance
advances; and $225 in unpaid foreclosure administrative fees. (Ramer Aff. at 6.) I therefore
recommend that judgment be entered against defendants in the amount of $297,041.18 plus
interest at the rate of twenty-four percent from April 4, 2024 to the date of judgment.
G. 	Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for $4,935 in attorney’s fees and $2,018.65 in costs.
(Ramer Aff. at 6.) Under the terms of the Note, NLL agreed “to pay all costs and expenses of
collection incurred” by the Lender, “in addition to principal and interest (including, without
limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements which, in event Lender starts a
Foreclosure and Sale, shall not be less than $5,000.00.)” (Note at 4.)
“[A]n award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to a contractual provision may only be
enforced to the extent that the amount is reasonable and warranted for the services actually
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
rendered.” Exec. Risk Indemn., Inc. v. Fieldbridge Assocs. LLC, 642 F. App’x 25, 25 (2d Cir.
2016) (summary order) (cleaned up); see also Carco Grp., Inc. v. Maconachy, 718 F.3d 72, 86
(2d Cir. 2013) (“[T]he touchstone for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to a contract is
reasonableness.”); Proimmune Co., LLC v. Holista Colltech Ltd., No. 20 CV 1247, 2024 WL
54281, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2024) (where the contract “unmistakabl[y]” entitles plaintiff to a
fee award, the court must still “examine whether Plaintiff’s request is reasonable”) (citation
omitted).
“The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is
the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly
rate.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 186
(2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). This calculation yields
a “presumptively reasonable fee,” commonly referred to as the “lodestar.” Millea v. Metro-North
R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 183). Although
originally developed for use in civil rights actions, “the same principle has been applied to
awards of contractual attorney’s fees.” Byline Bank v. SDS Dining Corp., 22 Civ. 6439, 2024
WL 1422812, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2024) (collecting cases). Within this broad mandate, the
district court has “considerable discretion” in determining the amount of the award. Arbor Hill,
522 F.3d at 190.
An application for attorney’s fees must be accompanied by contemporaneous time
records specifying, for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work
done. N.Y. State Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1148 (2d Cir. 1983).
Absent such documentation, the fee request must be denied. See, e.g., United States v. Carroll,
No. 19 CV 1709, 2023 WL 3260128, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2023) (denying request for
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
attorney’s fees associated with foreclosure action because plaintiff’s “request for attorney’s fees
remains insufficiently supported for want of contemporaneous time records or supporting
documentation” (quotations omitted)), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 3254937,
at *1 (W.D.N.Y. May 3, 2023). In addition, costs must be substantiated with invoices or other
documentation. See 5316 Church Ave., LLC v. Yhun, No. 14 CV 7376, 2018 WL 6204615, at *4
(E.D.N.Y. July 18, 2018), report and recommendation adopted as modified, 2018 WL 6201709
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2018).
Here, plaintiff has submitted no contemporaneous time records, no expense
receipts or invoices, and no biographical information for the attorneys and staff who worked on
this matter. I therefore recommend that the request for fees and costs be denied with leave to
renew upon the submission of proper documentation.
H. Appointment of Referee
Plaintiff requests the appointment of a referee to effectuate a sale of the Property
and distribute the funds from the sale in accordance with R.P.A.P.L. § 1354. (Proposed
Judgment, Dkt. No. 17-4.) “Courts routinely appoint referees to effectuate the sale of foreclosed
properties.” Valente, 2019 WL 3872853, at *4 (collecting cases). Accordingly, I recommend
that the court appoint a referee to manage the foreclosure and sale. Since plaintiff has not
requested any specific person be appointed as referee, I further recommend that the court require
plaintiff to propose the names of three referees by letter to the court, along with a brief
description of their qualifications, prior to making the appointment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend that plaintiff’s motion for a
default judgment of foreclosure and sale be granted in the amount of $297,041.18 plus interest at
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
the rate of twenty-four percent from April 4, 2024 to the date of judgment. I further recommend
that a referee be appointed to effectuate a sale of the Property and distribute the funds from such
sale in accordance with R.P.A.P.L. § 1354.
Any objections to this report and recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
the Court within fourteen (14) days. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives
the right to appeal the district court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED . R. C IV . P. 72, 6(a),
6(d). Plaintiff is directed to serve copies of this report and recommendation on the defaulting
defendants by regular mail, and to file proof of service within ten (10) days of the date of this
report and recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
ROBERT M. LEVY
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
October 28, 2025
Case 1:23-cv-09385-PKC-RML Document 23 Filed 10/28/25 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>