Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 17, 2025

Crescit Mortgage Capital, LLC v. Emerald Bay Apartments, LLC

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:22-cv-10263
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
ContractCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Crescit Mortgage Capital v. Emerald Bay Apartments, Judge Ho adopted a recommendation for default judgment awarding damages, costs, and interest.

Who this affects

Crescit Mortgage Capital, LLC, which was recommended to receive damages, costs, and interest, and the defendant against whom default judgment was recommended.

What happened

Crescit Mortgage Capital, LLC v. Emerald Bay Apartments, LLC is a contract case concerning damages after a defendant’s default.

The court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation to award Crescit $244,914.24 in principal damages, $777 in costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The defendant filed no objections or request for more time.

Judge Dale E. Ho found the recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law, and adopted it in its entirety. The recommendation called for default judgment against the defendant.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Crescit Mortgage Capital, LLC v. Emerald Bay Apartments, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10263
Judge
Ho
Date
Jan. 17, 2025

Background

This contract matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Parker to determine damages. On December 27, 2024, Magistrate Judge Parker issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that default judgment be entered against Defendant and that Plaintiff receive:

- $244,914.24 in principal damages, representing Plaintiff’s actual damages; - $777.00 in costs; - pre-judgment interest on those damages at 9% from August 1, 2022, through the date judgment is entered; and - post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Objections and Review

The Report and Recommendation gave Defendant 17 days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. Defendant filed no objections and did not request an extension. The court therefore held that Defendant waived the right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review.

Even without objections, the court reviewed the recommendation under the applicable standard and found it well reasoned and grounded in fact and law.

Ruling

Judge Dale E. Ho adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The opinion states that the recommendation called for default judgment against Defendant with the specified damages, costs, and interest. Because the ruling concerns default judgment rather than an adversarial decision on the underlying contract merits, this is a procedural disposition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.