Summary
adopting magistrate's finding that car service president was jointly and severally liable with corporation because he “had a personal role in preparing and/or endorsing the fraudulent statement and thus, in the intentional and negligent misrepresentation” to insurance company despite fact that he “cannot be held liable for breach of contract” with insurer
Summary of this case from Coppola Constr. Co. v. Hoffman Enters. Ltd. P'shipOpinion
Case No. 07-CV-00037 (FB) (CLP).
January 26, 2010
For the Plaintiff: JEFFREY R. KRANTZ, ESQ., Bennett, Giuliano, McDonnell Perrone LLP, New York, New York.
For Defendants Fast Lane Car Service, Inc., and Virjilio Lajara: EFRAIN RAMOS, JR., ESQ., Law Office of Efrain Ramos, Jr., Ozone Park, New York.
For Defendant Elis Agency, Inc.: RICHARD B. LIND, ESQ., Law Office of Richard B. Lind, Esq., New York, New York.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On January 5, 2010, Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") recommending that Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty") be awarded damages for unpaid insurance premiums in the amount of $174,193.00 from Defendants Fast Lane Car Service, Inc., and Virjilio Lajara (collectively, "Fast Lane"). The R R also recommends that Liberty be awarded prejudgment interest on this sum at 9% per annum from July 1, 2005, plus post-judgment interest in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). The R R also stated that failure to object within fourteen days of receipt of the R R would waive any right to further judicial review. See R R at 17, Docket Entry No. 37. According to the docket, Fast Lane's counsel received electronic notice of the R R on January 6, 2010; no objections have been filed.
The Fast Lane defendants are the only remaining defendants; Elis Agency, Inc. and Irina Gitsin entered into a stipulated dismissal with prejudice on April 10, 2008. See Docket Entry No. 18.
If 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 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 further judicial review of the magistrate's decision."). The Court will 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 such error appears here.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the R R without de novo review and directs the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the R R.