Trinidad v. 62 Realty, LLC
- 1:22-cv-00101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Trinidad v. 62 Realty, LLC, the court, with no judge identified, entered judgment for plaintiffs totaling $67,402.37 after correcting the costs calculation.
The plaintiffs receive a total judgment of $67,402.37, plus post-judgment interest until payment. The judgment is entered against 62 Realty, LLC, 311 Realty, LLC, Deanna Joy, and Jim Frantz.
What happened
In Trinidad v. 62 Realty, LLC, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, Gilberto Trinidad, Jeremy Fernandez, and Nicolas De Jesus Herrera Sanchez, against the defendants. The judgment followed an earlier report and court order, which are not included in the provided text.
The court accepted the report’s reasoning except for one calculation error. It added a $553.09 technology-fee item to the costs, increasing the costs award to $3,832.99 and the total award to $67,402.37.
The court entered judgment for the plaintiffs for $67,402.37, plus interest after judgment until payment. No judge is identified in the provided judgment; Daniel Ortiz signed as Acting Clerk of Court. The court also stated that the absence of timely objections prevents appellate review of the decision.
The detailed version
- Trinidad v. 62 Realty, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00101
- July 10, 2024
What the court decided
The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs—Gilberto Trinidad, Jeremy Fernandez, and Nicolas De Jesus Herrera Sanchez—and against 62 Realty, LLC, 311 Realty, LLC, Deanna Joy, and Jim Frantz.
Calculation of the award
The judgment adopted the reasoning of a prior report and the court’s November 17, 2023 Memorandum Opinion and Order, except for one calculation. The report had inadvertently left out $553.09 in technology fees from the costs calculation. The court corrected the costs award to $3,832.99 and set the total award at $67,402.37.
Disposition
The court adopted the report in all other respects and entered judgment for the plaintiffs for $67,402.37. The judgment also provides for post-judgment interest, calculated from July 10, 2024, until the date of payment. The court stated that, because the report provided clear notice and no timely objections were filed, appellate review of the decision is precluded.
The provided judgment does not identify the deciding judge. Daniel Ortiz signed the document as Acting Clerk of Court, with a deputy clerk also identified.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.