Federal National Mortgage Association v. 1488 Bushwick, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
23-CV-4030 (RPK) (TAM)
Plaintiff,
-against-
1488 BUSHWICK, LLC, SOLOMON
STEINLAUF, and NEW YORK CITY
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------X
TARYN A. MERKL, United States Magistrate Judge:
The Federal National Mortgage Association (“Plaintiff” or “Fannie Mae”),
initiated this action on May 31, 2023, against Defendants 1488 Bushwick, LLC (the
“Borrower” or the “Property”), Solomon Steinlauf (the “Guarantor”) (together the
“Borrower-Defendants”), the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and
Development (“DHPD”), the New York City Environmental Control Board (“ECB”),
and John Doe #1 through John Doe #17. (Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1.) Currently
pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against the ECB,
which the Honorable Rachel P. Kovner referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for
a report and recommendation. (See Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 94; Sept. 18, 2025 ECF
Order.) For the reasons set forth below, this Court respectfully recommends that
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. 	Factual Background
As described in Plaintiff’s complaint, on or about January 29, 2021, the Borrower
borrowed $2,375,000 plus interest from its original lender; this transaction was
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
memorialized in an executed Amended and Restated Multifamily Note (the “Note”).
(Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 17; see also Compl., Ex. A (“Note”), ECF No. 1-6.) That same day,
the Borrower and the lender entered into two additional agreements: (1) the
Multifamily Loan and Security Agreement (the “Loan Agreement”), which required the
Borrower to make monthly loan payments to the lender on the first day of each month
from March 1, 2021, through February 1, 2031 (the “Monthly Payments”), and (2) the
Multifamily Mortgage, Assignment of Leases and Rents, Security Agreement, and
Fixture Filing (the “Mortgage Agreement”). (Id. ¶¶ 18–19; see also Compl., Ex. B (“Loan
Agreement”), ECF No. 1-7; Compl., Ex. C (“Mortgage Agreement”), ECF No. 1-8.) The
original lender then assigned to Plaintiff the Note, Loan Agreement, and Mortgage
Agreement (collectively, the “Loan Documents”). (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 29–32; Pl.’s
Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Appoint Receiver (“Receiver Mem.”), ECF No. 47, at 3; see also
Compl., Ex. E (“Mortgage and Note Assignment”), ECF No. 1-10; Compl., Ex. F
(“Collateral Agreements Assignment”), ECF No. 1-11.) The Loan Documents provided
that the Borrower was entrusted to collect and receive rent from the Property’s tenants
and use the rent payments for the management and maintenance of the Property.
(Receiver Mem., ECF No. 47, at 3; Noakes Decl., ECF No. 28, ¶ 8.)
Section 14.01(a)(1) of the Loan Agreement states that any failure by the Borrower
to pay or deposit any amount required by the Loan Documents, including a failure to
make any Monthly Payment to the lender, constitutes an automatic “Event of Default.”
(Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 33; Loan Agreement, ECF No. 1-7, at 74.) Plaintiff alleges that,
since January 1, 2023, the Borrower has failed to pay the Monthly Payment due as
required under the Loan Documents. (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 39–44; see also Receiver
Mem., ECF No. 47, at 4; Noakes Decl., ECF No. 28, ¶¶ 14–15.) According to Plaintiff,
each failure to fulfill the Monthly Payment constitutes an Event of Default under the
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Loan Documents, “entitling Plaintiff to exercise all its rights and remedies under the
Loan Documents.” (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 39–43; Receiver Mem., ECF No. 47, at 4.) On
May 31, 2023, Plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose (i) the loan secured by the
Property’s mortgage and (ii) junior liens held by the DHPD and the ECB based on the
number of fines these agencies have issued concerning the Property. (See generally
Compl., ECF No. 1.)
II. Procedural History
As noted above, Plaintiff Fannie Mae filed this case on May 31, 2023, seeking
foreclosure of the Property. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff named five defendants:
(1) 1488 Bushwick, LLC, as the borrower under the terms of the Note; (2) Solomon
Steinlauf, as the guarantor; (3) the DHPD, due to “its apparent liens against the
Property”; (4) the ECB, due to “its outstanding judgments against the Property”; and
(5) John Doe #1 through John Doe #17 as “they are or may be tenants or may be in
possession of the Property, or may be corporations or other entities or person who
claim, or may claim, a lien against the Property.” (Id. ¶¶ 66–68, 70; Loan Agreement,
ECF No. 1-7, at ECF p. 16.)
Plaintiff reached a resolution with the DHPD and with the Borrower-Defendants.
(Stipulation of Dismissal, ECF No. 14; Stipulation of Settlement, ECF No. 97.) Judge
Kovner also granted Plaintiff’s request to amend the caption to remove the John Doe
Defendants. (See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Default J. (“Mem.”), ECF No. 95, at 7; Sept.
18, 2025 ECF Order.) Plaintiff now seeks a default judgment against the remaining
Defendant, the ECB, declaring that the ECB’s interests are junior and subordinate to
Plaintiff’s mortgage liens on the Property, and that the ECB is barred from all claims of,
in, and to the Property. (See Mem., ECF No. 95, at 7.)
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
On June 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed proof of service as to the ECB, indicating it had
been served with the summons, complaint, and notice of pendency through the New
York Corporation Counsel. (Aff. of Service, ECF No. 8, at 1; Aff. of Service, ECF No. 9, at
3.) On July 14, 2023, an attorney for the ECB entered a notice of appearance for the ECB
and waived service of all papers in this action, except the amended complaint, notice of
discontinuance of action, notice of sale, Referee’s report of sale, and notice of
proceedings to obtain surplus moneys. (Notice of Appearance, ECF No. 11.) To date,
Defendant ECB has not otherwise answered, moved, or responded to the complaint.
On July 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal with respect to
Defendant DHPD. (Stipulation of Dismissal, ECF No. 14.) Judge Kovner construed this
as a request for court-ordered dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) because “other
defendants had appeared in this action,” and dismissed the DHPD from the action.
(July 27, 2023 ECF Order.)
Plaintiff requested a certificate of default against Defendant ECB on August 9,
2023. (Req. for Certificate of Default, ECF No. 15.) The Clerk entered the certificate of
default against Defendant ECB on August 16, 2023, pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due to the ECB’s failure to appear or otherwise defend
this action. (Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF No. 16.) On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff moved
for default judgment of foreclosure and sale against the three remaining named
Defendants: 1488 Bushwick, LLC, Steinlauf, and the ECB. (Mot. for Default J., ECF No.
18; see also Aff. of Service, ECF No. 22.) Judge Kovner then referred the motion to the
undersigned magistrate judge on October 13, 2023. (Oct. 13, 2023 ECF Order Referring
Mot.) The next month, Plaintiff moved for the appointment of a receiver for the
Property, which was also referred to this Court. (Mot. to Appoint Receiver, ECF No. 25;
Nov. 22, 2023 ECF Order Referring Mot.) On November 7, 2023, the Court directed the
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
parties to attend a December 13, 2023 default motion hearing, where Defendant
Steinlauf (the Guarantor) appeared pro se, but the ECB did not appear. (Nov. 7, 2023
ECF Order; Dec. 13, 2023 ECF Min. Entry & Order.)
On February 15, 2024, Defendant 1488 Bushwick notified the Court that it had
filed for bankruptcy and Judge Kovner ordered the proceedings to be stayed against the
Borrower. (Bankruptcy Letter, ECF No. 38; Feb. 16, 2024 ECF Order.) Judge Kovner
noted that the Guarantor, the DHPD, and the ECB “ha[d] not requested that the Court
stay this action as to plaintiffs’ claims against them” and ordered these Defendants to
file a letter if they also sought a stay of proceedings. (Feb. 16, 2024 ECF Order.) Only the
Guarantor filed a response. (Guarantor’s Letter, ECF No. 39.) Due to the pending
bankruptcy, this Court administratively terminated Plaintiff’s motions for default
judgment for foreclosure and to appoint a receiver, allowing Plaintiff to renew
following the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings. (Feb. 29, 2024 ECF Order.)
Defendant 1488 Bushwick’s bankruptcy case was dismissed with prejudice on
August 8, 2024, and the Court lifted the stay. (Status Report, ECF No. 43; Aug. 19, 2024
ECF Order.) Plaintiff then requested a conference and leave to file a supplemental
complaint. (Pl.’s Req. for Pre-Mot. Conf., ECF No. 44.) After the Borrower-Defendants
and the ECB missed the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s pre-motion conference
request, Judge Kovner sua sponte extended Defendants’ deadline to respond to the
conference and amended complaint request to September 6, 2024. (Aug. 30, 2024 ECF
Order.) The ECB did not respond. (Cf. Guarantor’s Resp., ECF No. 45.)
On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff again moved to appoint a receiver pursuant to
Rule 66 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Judge Kovner referred the motion to
this Court. (See Mot. to Appoint Receiver, ECF No. 46; Sept. 9, 2024 ECF Order; Sept. 13,
2024 ECF Order.) The Court directed Defendants to file a response to the motion to
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
appoint a receiver by October 6, 2024, yet only the Borrower-Defendants responded.
(Sept. 16, 2024 ECF Order; Aff. in Opp’n to Appoint Receiver, ECF No. 52.) The
Borrower-Defendants then requested another extension to respond to Plaintiff’s
supplemental complaint, which the Court granted, extending Defendants’ response
deadline to November 11, 2024. (Letter Req. for Extension, ECF No. 53; Oct. 22, 2024
ECF Order.) The ECB never responded to Plaintiff’s motions to appoint a receiver and
to file a supplemental complaint. (Cf. Borrower-Defs.’ Affirmation in Opp’n to Mot. to
Amend, ECF No. 61.)1
The Court appointed a receiver on November 8, 2024. (Mem. & Order, ECF No.
56; Order, ECF No. 56-1; Nov. 8, 2024 ECF Order.) Plaintiff filed its proposed
supplemental complaint on November 18, 2024. (Suppl. Compl., ECF No. 60-1.) On
March 7, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint and
directed Defendants to respond to the complaint by March 21, 2025. (Mem. & Order,
ECF No. 63; Mar. 7, 2025 ECF Order.) The ECB did not respond. (Cf. Borrower-Defs.’
Am. Answer, ECF No. 66.)
On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pre-motion conference letter in anticipation of
moving for summary judgment; the Borrower-Defendants responded on May 14, 2025.
(Pl.’s Letter, ECF No. 70; Pl.’s Rule 56.1 Statement, ECF No. 71; Defs.’ Resp., ECF No.
74.) Plaintiff also indicated that it intended to move for a default judgment against
Defendant ECB. (Pl.’s Letter, ECF No. 70, at 1 n.1.) In response, Judge Kovner ordered
Plaintiff to file its “anticipated motion for default judgment against defendant New
York City Environmental Control Board and entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale
1 The Court notes that although Plaintiff’s counsel docketed ECF No. 61, it is the
Borrower-Defendants’ affirmation.
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
simultaneously with the filing of the bundled summary judgment motion papers.”
(May 16, 2025 ECF Order.) On September 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed a letter indicating that
the Borrower-Defendants had settled and consented to foreclosure. (Pl.’s Stipulation of
Settlement and Consent to Foreclosure, ECF No. 92.) Judge Kovner granted Plaintiff
leave to file a motion for default judgment against Defendant ECB, which Plaintiff did
on September 16, 2025. (Sept. 9, 2025 ECF Order; Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 94.)
DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides a “two-step process” for obtaining a
default judgment. Priestley v. Headminder, Inc., 647 F.3d 497, 504 (2d Cir. 2011). The
plaintiff must first obtain an entry of default when a defendant “has failed to plead or
otherwise defend” in an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Second, after the certificate of
default is entered and on the plaintiff’s application, the district court may enter a
default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); see also E.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 55.2(b).2 A
“plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment as a matter of right simply because a
party is in default.” Finkel v. Universal Elec. Corp., 970 F. Supp. 2d 108, 118 (E.D.N.Y.
2013). Rather, the decision to grant a motion for default judgment is “left to the sound
2 A plaintiff must also establish compliance with the procedural requirements of
E.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rules 7.1, 55.1, and 55.2. Having carefully reviewed the filings in this case,
the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion papers substantially comport with these rules.
Specifically, Plaintiff requested a certificate of default in accordance with Local Rule 55.1(a)(1)
and the Clerk of Court entered default. (See Req. for Certificate of Default, ECF No. 15;
Certificate of Default, ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff also demonstrated that Defendant ECB has failed to
defend the action and that the pleadings were properly served in accordance with Local Rule
55.1(a)(2). (See Aff. of Service, ECF No. 8, at ECF p. 1; Aff. of Service, ECF No. 9, at ECF p. 3.)
Plaintiff has further shown that, as a municipal agency, Defendant ECB was neither a minor nor
in the military during the relevant period. (See Chapman Decl., ECF No. 96, ¶ 5.) Finally,
Plaintiff has certified the mailing of the request for the certificate of default and the motion
papers to Defendant ECB at its last known business address, in accordance with Local Rules
55.1(a)(4) and 55.2(a)(3). (See Aff. of Service, ECF No. 98.)
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
discretion of [the] district court because it is in the best position to assess the individual
circumstances of a given case and to evaluate the credibility and good faith of the
parties.” Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1993).
The district court must also determine whether the plaintiff’s “allegations
establish [the defendant’s] liability as a matter of law.” Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79,
84 (2d Cir. 2009). In making this determination, the “court is required to accept all of the
. . . factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff’s]
favor.” Id. It is “the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that those uncontroverted
allegations, without more, establish the defendant’s liability on each asserted cause of
action.” Gunawan v. Sake Sushi Rest., 897 F. Supp. 2d 76, 83 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).
The New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) § 1311
identifies the necessary defendants in a mortgage foreclosure action, providing that
persons “whose interest is claimed to be subject and subordinate to the plaintiff’s lien,
shall be made a party defendant to the action,” including “[e]very person having any
lien or incumbrance upon the real property which is claimed to be subject and
subordinate to the lien of the plaintiff.” This rule “‘derives from the underlying
objective of foreclosure actions — to extinguish the rights of redemption of all those
who have a subordinate interest in the property and to vest complete title in the
purchaser at the judicial sale.’” NDF1, LLC v. Cunningham, 754 F. Supp. 3d 273, 285
(E.D.N.Y. 2024) (quoting Bank of Am., N.A. v. 3301 Atl., LLC, No. 10-CV-5204 (FB) (SMG),
2012 WL 2529196, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
In the case of a non-mortgagor defendant, entry of default judgment may be
appropriate where “the complaint alleges nominal liability, i.e., that any judgments or
liens a defendant may have against the property are subject and subordinate to
plaintiff’s lien.” U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n as Tr. for RMAC Tr., Series 2016-CTT v. Harilal, No.
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
19-CV-7034 (CBA) (JRC), 2022 WL 16754569, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2022) (quotation
marks omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 4596734 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30,
2022). After entry of a default judgment against a joined defendant with a nominal
interest, “any such interest in the relevant property is terminated.” Windward Bora LLC
v. Baez, No. 19-CV-5698 (PKC) (SMG), 2020 WL 4261130, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2020)
(quotation marks omitted).
Courts apply a heightened pleading standard for municipal defendants, like the
ECB, to determine whether Plaintiff has established nominal liability. See id. This
standard requires the complaint to allege “detailed facts showing the particular nature
of the interest in or lien on the real property and the reason for making such city a
party-defendant.”3 RPAPL § 202-a(1). If the non-mortgager defendant is a city entity,
and the lien exists due to a judgment, the complaint must include “the name of the
court, date recorded, clerk’s office in which filed, the names of the parties against whom
and in whose favor such judgment was recovered and a brief description of the grounds
for or the nature of such judgment.” Id. § 202-a(2).
3 Documentary proof of the city’s interest or lien is usually necessary and sufficient to
satisfy the heightened standard for pleading nominal liability against city defendants. See Fed.
Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. 2120 Tiebout LLC, No. 23-CV-9445 (DEH), 2025 WL 1503957, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
May 27, 2025) (collecting Second Circuit cases requiring documentation identifying the
existence and nature of the ECB violation to satisfy RPAPL § 202-a(1)’s pleading requirements);
Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Ass'n as Tr. for Holders of COMM 2014-UBS6 Mortg. Tr. Com. Mortg. Pass-
Through Certificates v. 366 Realty LLC, No. 17-CV-3570 (KAM) (JAM), 2024 WL 4891739, at *10
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2024) (A “plaintiff must substantiate their allegations with documentation,
such as a title report.”), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Ass'n v.
366 Realty LLC, 2025 WL 556036 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2025); see also CIT Bank v. Dambra, No. 14-CV-
3951 (SLT) (VMS), 2015 WL 7422348, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2015) (finding title search
documents showing monies the defendants owed to the ECB sufficient to support the plaintiff’s
allegations of liens), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 7430006 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20,
2015).
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
II. Analysis
Here, Plaintiff named the ECB as a defendant because the ECB’s subordinate
interests made it a necessary party to this foreclosure action. (Mem., ECF No. 95, at 5–7.)
See RPAPL § 1311(3); see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Watts, No. 16-CV-6919 (ENV) (RER),
2019 WL 3716190, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019
WL 3714582 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019). Plaintiff now seeks default judgment solely
against Defendant ECB due to its failure to respond. (Mem., ECF No. 95, at 6.)
Plaintiff represents that the ECB holds various open judgments against the
Property. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff also alleges that the ECB’s interest in the Property accrued
subsequent to, and is subject and subordinate to, Plaintiff’s Mortgage Lien. (Id. at 6–7.)
Plaintiff also avers that the ECB has filed various liens and/or judgments against the
Property over the years as follows:
The New York City Environmental Control Board (also known as the
Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [or “OATH”]) issued one
violation against the Borrower-Defendant based on improper occupancy
on March 27, 2023. The violation carries a fine of $2,500 and is scheduled
for a hearing on June 7, 2023.
The New York City Environmental Control Board . . . also issued 142
violations against the Property based on boiler inspections and violations
since approximately February 1997. This includes eighteen violations
against the Borrower-Defendant based on boiler violations on November
7, 2009, which were docketed for December 31, 2010 and carry thousands
of dollars in fines.
The New York City Environmental Control Board . . . also issued four
judgments against the Property docketed between May 2021 and February
2022, resulting in a total charge of $1,200.00.
(Suppl. Compl., ECF No. 60-1, ¶¶ 56–58.) Plaintiff has pled a violation description, date,
and penalty amount for the violation issued on March 27, 2023, but has not pled
individual descriptions, dates, or penalty amounts for the May 2021 through February
2022 judgments. However, Plaintiff has submitted a title report in a supplemental filing.
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
(Chapman Decl., ECF No. 96, ¶¶ 15–19; Title Report, ECF No. 96-7; see also Puskar Decl.,
ECF No. 73, ¶ 45; Title Report, ECF No. 73-8.) See Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Abass, No. 22-
CV-5577 (CBA) (JRC), 2025 WL 875421, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2025) (granting default
judgment against the ECB, despite the plaintiff’s deficient pleadings, because the
plaintiff later filed a title search documenting the existence of the violations), report and
recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 871661 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2025); cf. Wells Fargo Bank
Nat'l Ass'n v. 366 Realty LLC, No. 17-CV-3570 (KAM) (JAM), 2025 WL 2950434, at *10
(E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2025) (considering plaintiff’s supplemental filing, detailing a series of
fines issued by the ECB, in the court’s analysis of RPAPL § 202-a’s enhanced burden).
Here, the title report submitted by Plaintiff includes the OATH website entry
concerning the violation issued on March 27, 2023. (Title Report, ECF No. 96-7, at ECF
p. 87.) Plaintiff’s title report also includes details about the judgments that the
supplemental complaint alleged were “docketed between May 2021 and February
2022,” including violation number, docketed date, and penalty amount.4 (Suppl.
Compl., ECF No. 60-1, ¶ 58; see Title Report, ECF No. 96-7, at ECF p. 7.)
The Court takes judicial notice that, as of the date this opinion was issued, the
Property currently has 18 unpaid violations listed on the OATH website, 16 of which
4 The title report also included copies of 18 boiler violation entries on the OATH website.
(Title Report, ECF No. 96-7, at ECF pp. 89–124.) All of these violations have been paid. The 18
violations remain “open,” even though the penalty has been paid, because the ECB requires the
submission of a Certificate of Correction to close the entry. (See, e.g., Title Report, ECF No. 96-7,
at ECF p. 97 (indicating that although the Penalty Balance Due is $0.00, there is no Certificate,
and the violation remains open).) Additionally, the Court construes counsel’s statement
regarding the “142 violations against the Property based on boiler inspections and violations
since approximately February 1997” to simply illustrate the Property’s lengthy history of ECB
violations. (See Suppl. Compl., ECF No. 60-1, ¶ 57.)
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
are dated after the January 29, 2021 mortgage.5 (See Noakes ECB Violation Listing, ECF
No. 49-10 (noting 17 violations as of September 9, 2024); see also Mortgage and Note
Assignment to Pl., ECF No. 1-10, at ECF p. 9 (indicating that January 29, 2021 is the
operative date of the most recent mortgage).) Although the OATH website dates two of
the violations, 0212704480 and 047102600Y, before the January 29, 2021 mortgage,
Plaintiff alleges that the violations were “docketed between May 2021 and February
2022,” and Plaintiff’s title report confirms that the ECB docketed these judgments in
May 2021 and August 2021. (Title Report, ECF No. 96-7, at ECF p. 7; Chapman Decl.,
ECF No. 96, ¶ 15.) Under New York state law, a judgment upon real property becomes
a lien only after it has been docketed. See Dep’t of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. v. Ferranti, 622
N.Y.S.2d 717, 717 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1995); U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n as Tr. for Structured
Adjustable Rate Mortg. Loan Tr., Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-23 v. Haskins,
No. 18-CV-8478 (KMK), 2019 WL 6888654, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2019).
Title search documents showing the amounts owed to the ECB are generally
sufficient to meet the RPAPL’s heightened pleading standards. See Windward Bora LLC,
2020 WL 4261130, at *4 (citing Miss Jones, LLC v. Bisram, No. 16-CV-7020 (NGG) (SMG),
2018 WL 2074200, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018
WL 2074205 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018)). Here, Plaintiff’s filings contain sufficiently
detailed facts showing the particular nature of the ECB’s interest in the Property and
that these unpaid ECB liens were docketed after Plaintiff’s mortgage loan was recorded
5 The Court may take judicial notice of “documents retrieved from official government
websites” or other government records from such sites. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wrights Mill
Holdings, LLC, 127 F. Supp. 3d 156, 166 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (collecting cases). The Property’s
violations are viewable on the OATH Ticket Finder website, at https://a820-
ecbticketfinder.nyc.gov/searchHome.action? (last accessed Dec. 3, 2025), and at https://a836-
citypay.nyc.gov/citypay/ecb (last accessed Dec. 3, 2025).
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
against the Property; they are thus subordinate and foreclosable. See Fed. Nat'l Mortg.
Ass'n v. 204 Ellery St., LLC, No. 23-CV-5343 (ENV) (RML), 2025 WL 1309875, at *14
(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2025). Given that Plaintiff has illustrated that the ECB’s liens are
subordinate to the lien of the Mortgage being foreclosed, it is entitled to a default
judgment against the ECB.
The ECB has not submitted any opposition to Plaintiff’s assertions or motion.
Consequently, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations as true, and recommends that
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Defendant ECB be granted. See Onewest
Bank v. Serbones, No. 14-CV-7281 (RJD) (MDG), 2016 WL 1295197 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2016)
(recommending default judgment be entered against the ECB after the plaintiff served
the Board with process and with copies of its motion for default judgment), report and
recommendation adopted as modified sub nom. OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Serbones, 2016 WL
1306545, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above, the Court recommends entering a default
judgment against the New York City Environmental Control Board. Plaintiff is directed
to serve a copy of this report and recommendation on the defaulting Defendant ECB by
December 8, 2025, and to file proof of service with the Court.
* 	* 	* 	* 	*
This report and recommendation will be filed electronically and a copy sent by
ECF notification and by mail to the defaulting Defendant. Objections to this report and
recommendation must be filed, with a courtesy copy sent to the Honorable Rachel P.
Kovner at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201, within fourteen (14) days
of filing. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
(providing the method for computing time). Failure to file objections within the
specified time waives the right to appeal both before the district court and appellate
courts. See, e.g., Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008) (explaining
that “failure to object timely to a . . . report [and recommendation] operates as a waiver
of any further judicial review of the magistrate[ judge’s] decision” (quotation marks
omitted)).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 3, 2025
_____________________________________
TARYN A. MERKL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-04030-RPK-TAM Document 99 Filed 12/03/25 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>