Totin v. Oxford Property Group LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-03129
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Totin v. Oxford Property Group, Judge Engelmayer dismissed Sagi Pariente’s harassment counterclaim with prejudice because New York recognizes no such common-law claim.
Sagi Pariente’s harassment counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice; the opinion does not rule on Brian Totin’s underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
Totin v. Oxford Property Group LLC began with Brian Totin’s claims that the defendants used his photographs without permission. Defendant Sagi Pariente responded with a counterclaim accusing Totin of harassment.
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation because no party objected to it. The court agreed that New York does not recognize a common-law claim for harassment and that Pariente’s counterclaim did not state a legally recognized claim.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the recommendation in full and dismissed Pariente’s counterclaim with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again. The court also directed the clerk to close the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Totin v. Oxford Property Group LLC · No. 1:21-cv-03129
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 14, 2022
Background
Brian Totin brought claims for copyright infringement and unjust enrichment based on the defendants’ alleged unauthorized and willful use of his photographs. Sagi Pariente filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging “harassment.” Totin moved to dismiss that counterclaim.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal with prejudice. The report stated that New York does not recognize a common-law cause of action for harassment and that Pariente’s counterclaim was essentially a response to the claims brought against him, rather than a legally cognizable counterclaim.
Court’s Review
The district court explained that it may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s recommendations. Because no party objected, the court reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. The court found no such error and adopted the report in its entirety.
Ruling
The court dismissed Pariente’s counterclaim with prejudice because repleading would be futile. The opinion states that the parties’ failure to object also waived appellate review of the recommendation. The clerk was directed to close the motion pending at docket 17.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.