Peleus Insurance Company v. Structureline Inc. and Angel C. Tacuri Brito

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 2, 2026
Docket1:23-cv-01223
StatusUnknown

This text of Peleus Insurance Company v. Structureline Inc. and Angel C. Tacuri Brito (Peleus Insurance Company v. Structureline Inc. and Angel C. Tacuri Brito) 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
Peleus Insurance Company v. Structureline Inc. and Angel C. Tacuri Brito, (E.D.N.Y. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PELEUS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -against- Case No. 1:23-cv-1223 (FB) (RML)

STRUCTURELINE INC. and ANGEL C. TACURI BRITO,

Defendant. BLOCK, Senior District Judge: Magistrate Judge Levy issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that a default judgment be entered in this case, granting Peleus Insurance Company its requested declaratory judgment. The R&R gave the parties 14 days to file objections and warned that “[f]ailure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to judicial review.” R&R at 6. It was served by regular mail and e-mail on December 1, 2025, making objections due on December 18, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). No objections have been filed. Where 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 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); 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, 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, so the Court adopts

it without de novo review. Accordingly, the Clerk shall enter judgment declaring that Peleus Insurance Company does not have a contractual duty to defend or indemnify Structureline Inc. in connection with the case entitled Angel C. Tacuri Brito v. Noa-Lior LLC and Structureline Inc., Index No. 803418/2021E, in New York State Supreme

Court, Bronx County. SO ORDERED. _/S/ Frederic Block__________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York February 2, 2026

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Peleus Insurance Company v. Structureline Inc. and Angel C. Tacuri Brito, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peleus-insurance-company-v-structureline-inc-and-angel-c-tacuri-brito-nyed-2026.