Rouse v. Jay Street Realty Associates, L.P. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOSEPH ROUSE,
Plaintiff,
-against-
JAY ST FRESH 99 CENTS PIZZA INC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 23-CV-6548
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
MARIA CONSTANZA BARDUCCI
Barducci Law Firm PLLC
5 West 19th St, 10th Fl
New York, NY 10011
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
On June 14, 2024, the Court referred a motion for default judgment by
Joseph Rouse (“Plaintiff”) against Jay St. Fresh 99 Cents Pizza Inc (“Defendant”)
to Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry. On March 14, 2025, Magistrate Judge
Henry issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court
grant in part the motion for default judgment against Defendant and issue an
injunction: (a) requiring Defendant to prepare architectural plans remedying the
violations described in the Complaint and to provide Plaintiff’s counsel with those
plans for review within 90 days of entry of judgment; (b) permitting Plaintiff to
seek further relief from the Court within 30 days upon receipt of the plans; and (c)
permitting
*AMENDED*
Case 1:23-cv-06548-FB-MMH Document 26 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Defendant to complete the necessary alterations within 60 days after either Plaintiff
consents to the alterations or a ruling by the Court that the plans are adequate,
whichever occurs first. See R&R at 15, ECF No.16. The R&R also recommended
the Court grant Plaintiff 180 days after the entry of default judgment to move for
attorneys’ fees and costs.
The R&R gave the parties fourteen days to file objections, i.e., until March
28, 2025, and warned that “[i]f a party fails to object timely to this Report and
Recommendation, it waives any right to further judicial review[.]” Id. at 25. No
objections have been filed. If clear notice has been given of the consequences of
failing 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); Smith v. Campbell,
782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Where parties receive clear notice of the
consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation
operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.”
(citations omitted)). 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. Accordingly, the
Court adopts the R&R without de novo review. The Court enters judgment for
Case 1:23-cv-06548-FB-MMH Document 26 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Plaintiff against Defendant for an injunction: (a) requiring Defendant to prepare
architectural plans remedying the violations described in the Complaint and to
provide Plaintiff’s counsel with those plans for review within 90 days of entry of
judgment; (b) permitting Plaintiff to seek further relief from the Court within 30 days
upon receipt of the plans; and (c) permitting Defendant to complete the necessary
alterations within 60 days after either Plaintiff consents to the alterations or a ruling
by the Court that the plans are adequate, whichever occurs first. The Court also
grants Plaintiff 180 days after the entry of default judgment to move for attorneys’
fees and costs. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this opinion,
amending Plaintiff’s proposed default judgment accordingly. See Proposed J., ECF
No. 14-2.
SO ORDERED.
_/S/ Frederic Block__________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New
York
February 19, 20256
Case 1:23-cv-06548-FB-MMH Document 26 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>