Finally, to the extent that defendant argues that the description of the plaintiff's injuries provides a sufficient basis for inferring that the amount sought in damages is greater than the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000, the Court notes that “plaintiff is the master of its claim whose monetary demand is to be accorded deference, ” and that even where “[d]efendant's calculations may give it a good faith basis for having signed the notice of removal, [] it is not up to defendant to tell plaintiff the amount for which he is suing.” Wellington v. American Sec. Ins. Co., No. 18 CV 7132, 2019 WL 1060801, at * 1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2019) (citations and quotations omitted); see Nogura v. Bedard, 2011 WL 5117598, at *3 (noting that a court “may consider evidence outside of a plaintiff's pleading to establish” the amount in controversy, but holding that the amount in controversy was not established where defendants did “not provide medical records, accident reports, or other information”). Here, defendant has only stated plaintiffs' alleged injuries, noting “unspecified economic damages” among other injuries

Although the C.P.L.R. provides various means of ascertaining the amount in controversy, defendant did not take advantage of any of these devices. See Wellington v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., No. 18-cv-7132, 2019 WL 1060801, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. March 6, 2019). Defendant has therefore failed to show a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County.