Jocelyn Pierre v. Nine One Two Corp

E.D. New York

Jocelyn Pierre v. Nine One Two Corp

District Court, E.D. New York·Decided September 16, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-03326·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOCELYN PIERRE, MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff, 19-CV-3326 (NGG) (SMG) -against- NINE ONE TWO CORP., and CHONG & BYUNG LLC, Defendants.

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge. Plaintiff Jocelyn Pierre brought this action against Defendants Nine One Two Corp. and Chong & Byung LLC, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12182, et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296; and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107. (Compl. (Dkt. 1)). When Defendants failed to appear, Plaintiff moved for a default judgment against them. (Pl. Mot. for Default J. (Dkt. 13).) On October 31, 2019, the court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold for a Report and Rec- ommendation (“R&R”). (Oct. 31, 2019 Order Referring Mot.) Judge Gold issued the annexed R&R on May 29, 2020, recommending that the court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs motion. (R&R (Dkt. 18) at 9.) Specifically, Judge Gold recommended (1) that Defendants be found liable under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL; (2) that an injunction issue requiring Defendants to alter their facilities to make them accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a) (2); (3) that Plaintiffs be awarded $1,000 in compensatory damages under NYSHRL and NYCHRL; and (4) that Plaintiffs request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under the ADA be denied without prejudice, and that counsel be permitted to submit a sworn statement and billing records to renew the request within 14 days of the court’s order adopting the R&R. (R&R at 9.) No party has objected to Judge Gold’s R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See Fed. R. of Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Therefore, the court reviews the R&R for clear

error. See Gesualdi v. Mack Excavation & Trailer Serv., Inc., No. 09 CV 2502 (KAM) (JO), 2010 WL 985294, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010); La Torres v. Walker, 216 F. Supp. 2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Having found none, the court ADOPTS the R&R in full. SO ORDERED.

Dated: — Brooklyn, New York September 16, 2020 /s/ Nicholas G. Garaufis NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOCELYN PIERRE, MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff, 19-CV-3326 (NGG) (SMG) -against- NINE ONE TWO CORP., and CHONG & BYUNG LLC, Defendants.

NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge. Plaintiff Jocelyn Pierre brought this action against Defendants Nine One Two Corp. and Chong & Byung LLC, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12182, et seq.; the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296; and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107. (Compl. (Dkt. 1)). When Defendants failed to appear, Plaintiff moved for a default judgment against them. (Pl. Mot. for Default J. (Dkt. 13).) On October 31, 2019, the court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold for a Report and Rec- ommendation (“R&R”). (Oct. 31, 2019 Order Referring Mot.) Judge Gold issued the annexed R&R on May 29, 2020, recommending that the court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs motion. (R&R (Dkt. 18) at 9.) Specifically, Judge Gold recommended (1) that Defendants be found liable under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL; (2) that an injunction issue requiring Defendants to alter their facilities to make them accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a) (2); (3) that Plaintiffs be awarded $1,000 in compensatory damages under NYSHRL and NYCHRL; and (4) that Plaintiffs request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under the ADA be denied without prejudice, and that counsel be permitted to submit a sworn statement and billing records to renew the request within 14 days of the court’s order adopting the R&R. (R&R at 9.) No party has objected to Judge Gold’s R&R, and the time to do so has passed. See Fed. R. of Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Therefore, the court reviews the R&R for clear

error. See Gesualdi v. Mack Excavation & Trailer Serv., Inc., No. 09 CV 2502 (KAM) (JO), 2010 WL 985294, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2010); La Torres v. Walker, 216 F. Supp. 2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Having found none, the court ADOPTS the R&R in full. SO ORDERED.

Dated: — Brooklyn, New York September 16, 2020 /s/ Nicholas G. Garaufis NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS United States District Judge

Jocelyn Pierre v. Nine One Two Corp, (E.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Jocelyn Pierre v. Nine One Two Corp (Jocelyn Pierre v. Nine One Two Corp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related