Pierre v. Smith Street Bagel Inc.

E.D. New York

Pierre v. Smith Street Bagel Inc.

DecidedAugust 14, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-07901

StatusUnknown

This text of Pierre v. Smith Street Bagel Inc. (Pierre v. Smith Street Bagel Inc.) 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

Pierre v. Smith Street Bagel Inc., (E.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOCELYN PIERRE, 23-CV-7901 (ARR) (CLP) Plaintiff, NOT FOR ELECTRONIC -against- OR PRINT PUBLICATION

SMITH STREET BAGEL INC. and 323 SMITH OPINION & ORDER STREET, LLC,

Defendants.

ROSS, United States District Judge:

This Court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated July 3, 2025, from the Honorable Cheryl L. Pollack, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-CV-874 (CBA)(LB), 2011 WL 1930682, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff’d, 472 F. App’x 73 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). Where no timely objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-CV-0371 (LDH)(LB), 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is granted in part and denied it in part. An injunction is issued, pursuant to the ADA, ordering defendants to submit a compliance plan to remedy the violations described in the Complaint within 60 days of this order. After the plan is submitted, plaintiff shall have 30 days to consent or seek further relief from the Court. Once a version plan is approved, either by consent or order, defendant shall make the necessary alterations within 60 days. Plaintiff is awarded a total $1,000 in compensatory damages under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. I reserve ruling on

attorney’s fees and costs to ensure that plaintiff’s counsel has sufficient time to make efforts to enforce the injunction. Plaintiff shall have six months from the date of this order to file a motion for attorney’s fees and costs as provided under the ADA. SO ORDERED.

/s/ ARR Allyne R. Ross United States District Judge

Dated: August 14, 2025 Brooklyn, New York

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, 23-CV-7901 (ARR) (CLP) Plaintiff, NOT FOR ELECTRONIC -against- OR PRINT PUBLICATION

SMITH STREET BAGEL INC. and 323 SMITH OPINION & ORDER STREET, LLC,

Defendants.

ROSS, United States District Judge:

This Court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated July 3, 2025, from the Honorable Cheryl L. Pollack, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. The Court reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also Brissett v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth., No. 09-CV-874 (CBA)(LB), 2011 WL 1930682, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 19, 2011), aff’d, 472 F. App’x 73 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). Where no timely objections have been filed, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Finley v. Trans Union, Experian, Equifax, No. 17-CV-0371 (LDH)(LB), 2017 WL 4838764, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2017) (quoting Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F. Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I therefore adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is granted in part and denied it in part. An injunction is issued, pursuant to the ADA, ordering defendants to submit a compliance plan to remedy the violations described in the Complaint within 60 days of this order. After the plan is submitted, plaintiff shall have 30 days to consent or seek further relief from the Court. Once a version plan is approved, either by consent or order, defendant shall make the necessary alterations within 60 days. Plaintiff is awarded a total $1,000 in compensatory damages under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. I reserve ruling on

attorney’s fees and costs to ensure that plaintiff’s counsel has sufficient time to make efforts to enforce the injunction. Plaintiff shall have six months from the date of this order to file a motion for attorney’s fees and costs as provided under the ADA. SO ORDERED.

/s/ ARR Allyne R. Ross United States District Judge

Dated: August 14, 2025 Brooklyn, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pierre v. Smith Street Bagel Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierre-v-smith-street-bagel-inc-nyed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack