PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Rodriguez et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
-against-
LUCY ANNE RODRIGUEZ AS
COADMINISTRATOR TO THE
ESTATE OF AND AS HEIR AT LAW
AND NEXT OF KIN TO THOMAS J.
HECKMAN JR. A/K/A THOMAS
JOSEPH HECKMAN JR. A/K/A
THOMAS HECKMAN A/K/A
THOMAS J. HECKMAN; LAURA
ANN HECKMAN AS
COADMINISTRATOR TO THE
ESTATE OF AND AS HEIR AT LAW
AND NEXT OF KIN TO THOMAS J.
HECKMAN JR. A/K/A THOMAS
JOSEPH HECKMAN JR. A/K/A
THOMAS HECKMAN A/K/A
THOMAS J. HECKMAN; DANIEL
THOMAS HECKMAN AS
COADMINISTRATOR TO THE
ESTATE OF AND AS HEIR AT LAW
AND NEXT OF KIN TO THOMAS J.
HECKMAN JR. A/K/A THOMAS
JOSEPH HECKMAN JR. A/K/A
THOMAS HECKMAN A/K/A
THOMAS J. HECKMAN; CLERK OF
THE SUFFOLK COUNTY TRAFFIC
& PARKING VIOLATIONS
AGENCY; and “JOHN DOE #1”
through “JOHN DOE #12,” the last
twelve names being fictitious and
unknown to plaintiff, the persons or
parties intended being the tenants,
occupants, persons or corporations, if
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 25-CV-07080 (FB) (LGD)
Case 2:25-cv-07080-FB-LGD Document 29 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
any, having or claiming an interest in
or lien upon the Subject Property
described in the Complaint,
Defendants.
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
ROBERT THOMAS YUSKO
JAMIE C. KRAPF
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway LLC
10 Midland Avenue, Ste 205
Port Chester, NY 10573
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Magistrate Lee G. Dunst issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending the Court deny the motion for default judgment against Defendants
without prejudice. See R&R at 10. The R&R gave the parties 14 days to file
objections and warned that “[f]ailure to file timely objections shall constitute a waiver
of those objections both in the district court and on later appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals.” Id. The R&R was issued on September 23, 2026, making
objections due on October 7, 2026. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). No objections have been
filed.
Where clear notice has been given of the consequences of failure to object, and
there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d
758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure
timely to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates as a waiver of
Case 2:25-cv-07080-FB-LGD Document 29 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”). The Court will, however, 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 error, plain or otherwise, appears on the face of the R&R, so the Court adopts
it without de novo review. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Defendants
without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
_/S/ Frederic Block_________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
October 13, 2026
Case 2:25-cv-07080-FB-LGD Document 29 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>