Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled May 2, 2024

Kornea v. Miller

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:22-cv-04454
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Summary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kornea v. Miller, Judge Engelmayer granted summary judgment to Kornea and Kecenovici, dismissing Miller’s counterclaims in their entirety.

Who this affects

Illia Kornea and Octavian Kecenovici obtained summary judgment, and Jeffrey A. Miller’s counterclaims were dismissed in their entirety.

What happened

In Kornea v. Miller, Illia Kornea and Octavian Kecenovici asked the court for summary judgment on Jeffrey A. Miller’s counterclaims. The court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant that motion.

No party objected to the recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none, adopting the recommendation in full. The opinion does not describe the counterclaims because it incorporates the recommendation’s factual summary by reference.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Miller’s counterclaims in their entirety. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review and directed the clerk to close the motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Kornea v. Miller · No. 1:22-cv-04454
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
May 2, 2024

Background

Illia Kornea and Octavian Kecenovici moved for summary judgment—a decision without a trial when the relevant issues can be resolved under the governing legal standards—on Jeffrey A. Miller’s counterclaims. The motion was pending at Docket 110.

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued an April 5, 2024 Report and Recommendation advising that the court grant the plaintiffs’ motion and dismiss Miller’s counterclaims in their entirety. The district court incorporated the Report’s factual summary by reference rather than repeating those facts in this opinion.

Court’s Review

Because no party submitted objections, the district court reviewed the Report for clear error. That review asks whether the recommendation contains an obvious error on the face of the record. The court found no such error and adopted the Report in its entirety.

The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object, after being warned that an objection was required within fourteen days, waived appellate review.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Miller’s counterclaims in their entirety. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 110 and mail a copy of the decision to the parties at the addresses on file.

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.