Benedetto v. Korinek

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 4, 2022
Docket1:21-cv-06005
StatusUnknown

This text of Benedetto v. Korinek (Benedetto v. Korinek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Benedetto v. Korinek, (E.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------x CRISTINA BENEDETTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -against-

Case No. 1:21-cv-06005-FB-RLM JANE KORINEK,

Defendant. ------------------------------------------------x

Appearances: For the Defendant: For the Plaintiffs: DOUGLAS ANDREW SHEARER JOSHUA CLINTON PRICE Shearer P.C. The Price Law Firm LLC 98 Forest Avenue 1115 Broadway Ste. 1053 Locust Valley, NY 11560 New York, NY 10010

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: Cristina and Evan Benedetto (the “Benedettos”), in their individual capacities and on behalf of their young son, brought this action against Jane Korinek (“Korinek”) for injuries suffered due to mold and other issues with the apartment where they resided, which Korinek owns. On November 5, 2021, Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this action be sua sponte remanded to Supreme Court, Kings County, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See ECF No. 4 at 3. A court may do so under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Defendant timely objected to the R&R’s finding that the Notice of Removal provides an insufficient basis for concluding that the amount in controversy

satisfies the jurisdictional threshold required for diversity jurisdiction. This objection triggers the Court’s de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the following reasons, the Court overrules the objection and adopts Magistrate Judge

Mann’s R&R in full. Defendant Korinek removed this action from state court on October 28,

2021 based on diversity jurisdiction. See ECF 1. To satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction in this case, Korinek must show that (i) the Benedettos are citizens of a state and Korinek is a subject of a foreign government and (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see also

Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc., 216 F. 3d 291, 296 (2d. Cir. 2000). The Benedettos pleaded that they are citizens of New York and Korinek alleges that she is a citizen of France, where she was served.

However, the Notice of Removal does not provide a basis for finding that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. It merely acknowledges that the

plaintiffs seek to recover for an unspecified amount in damages. See ECF 1 at 2. The Complaint likewise does not specify the numerical amount in damages sought, beyond reimbursement of the Benedettos’ security deposit in the amount of $3,650.

See ECF 1 at 15. Korinek objects, arguing that there is a basis for finding that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because the Benedettos submitted a written claim form to Korinek and her insurer prior to filing this action which

provided support for recovery of $71,899.75, with regard to claims one, two and four. With this action, the Benedettos also seek recovery for personal injury via count three. This amount would need to exceed $3,100.25 in order to satisfy the diversity jurisdiction requirement, and Korinek argues that it is reasonable to

assume that it would. However, the Court disagrees that this is a reasonable inference, since no support is provided for it. Even if the Court accepts the support that Korinek submitted with her objection to the R&R that the claim will reach

$71,899.75, this amount does not exceed $75,000. After review, the Court agrees with the reasoning and conclusion elaborated

by Magistrate Judge Mann in the R&R and accordingly adopts the same. There is no showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, which prevents a finding of diversity subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the action is sua sponte remanded to state court. CONCLUSION The Defendant’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation is OVERRRULED, and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full.

SO ORDERED. _/S/ Frederic Block___________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge

Brooklyn, New York January 4, 2022

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mehlenbacher v. Akzo Nobel Salt, Inc.
216 F.3d 291 (Second Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Benedetto v. Korinek, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benedetto-v-korinek-nyed-2022.