From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bosch v. Lamattina

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Nov 4, 2008
08-CV-238 (JS) (AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2008)

Summary

holding that the Anti–Injunction Act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings in the Suffolk County District Court, Fifth District because the court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

Summary of this case from Sinisgallo v. Town of Islip Hous. Auth.

Opinion

08-CV-238 (JS) (AKT).

November 4, 2008

For Plaintiff: Donald Markowitz, Esq., Flower, Medalie Markowitz, Bay Shore, NY.

For Defendants: Young Young: Patrick F. Young, Esq., Young Young, LLP, Central Islip, NY, Thomas J. Bailey Peter David Rigelhaupt, Esq., L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita Contini, LLP, Garden City, NY, Joseph A. Schubin Associates Ariel Michael Furman, Esq., Kaufman, Borgeest Ryan LLP, New York, NY, Freedom Mortgage Corp., Gerald A. Bunting, Esq., Law Offices of Gerald A. Bunting, Mineola, NY.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT RECOMMENDATION


Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson issued on August 4, 2008. On January 29, 2008, Plaintiff moved by Order to Show Cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order seeking to stay the eviction proceedings pending against Plaintiff. On January 31, 2008, this Court denied Plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order, and referred the application for a preliminary injunction to Magistrate Judge Tomlinson to report and recommend on whether it should be granted.

Magistrate Judge Tomlinson's Report recommends that the preliminary injunction be denied because Plaintiff's claims are currently being adjudicated in the Suffolk County District Court, and the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, bars an interference with the state court proceedings.

Upon review of the Report, to which no party has objected, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report in its entirety.

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure any objections to the Report were to be filed with the Clerk of the Court within ten days of service of the Report. The time for filing objections has expired and no Party has objected. Accordingly, all objections are hereby deemed to have been waived.

The Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety and DENIES Plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction seeking to bar her eviction from her residence located at 105 Barber Street, Brentwood, New York.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Bosch v. Lamattina

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Nov 4, 2008
08-CV-238 (JS) (AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2008)

holding that the Anti–Injunction Act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings in the Suffolk County District Court, Fifth District because the court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

Summary of this case from Sinisgallo v. Town of Islip Hous. Auth.
Case details for

Bosch v. Lamattina

Case Details

Full title:GUADALUPE BOSCH, Plaintiff, v. DOMENICO LAMATTINA, YOUNG YOUNG LLP, THOMAS…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Nov 4, 2008

Citations

08-CV-238 (JS) (AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2008)

Citing Cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Metro Pain Specialists P.C.

(“To qualify for the first exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, the equitable remedy . . . must be a…

Sinisgallo v. Town of Islip Hous. Auth.

By contrast, courts have found that where a plaintiff “could fully preserve in state court” as a defense the…