UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x

DR. GERALD R. FINKEL, as Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 23-CV-4868(EK)(JAM) Petitioner,

-against-

FIREQUENCH, INC.,

Respondent.

------------------------------------x ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge: The Court has received Magistrate Judge Marutollo’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) dated January 29, 2024. ECF No. 13. Judge Marutollo recommends that I confirm the arbitration award rendered pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between the Petitioner, Dr. Finkel, and the Respondent, Firequench, Inc., (the “Award”) and grant Finkel’s motion in part. Judge Marutollo further recommends that I order Firequench to pay Finkel the total remaining award amount of $40,506.07, consisting of: (1) reported but unpaid contributions in the amount of $11,603.44; (2) interest in the amount of $3,701.65; (3) additional shortages and underpayments in the amount of $3,051.30; (4) liquidated damages in the amount of $16,399.68; (5) legal fees and costs in the amount of $4,350.00; and (6) the arbitrator’s fee in the amount of $1,400.00. Finally, Judge Marutollo recommends that Finkel be awarded post- judgment interest in accordance with

and that Firequench be ordered to pay Finkel $742.00 for the attorney’s

fees and costs it incurred in connection with this proceeding. Respondent Firequench has not filed any objections to this R&R, and the time to do so has expired. Finkel filed a timely objection only to the portion of Judge Martuollo’s R&R that recommends awarding $402 in costs, rather than the $477 requested. ECF No. 15. Finkel argues that the additional $75 service cost should be awarded because, although he did not submit documentation of this cost in his initial motion, he has since obtained, and attached as exhibits, a service invoice and a history bill demonstrating payment of a $90 service fee. ECF Nos. 15-1, 15-2. (Finkel’s objection only requests $75, however, as this was the amount estimated and requested in the

initial motion.) A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). The district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party has specifically objected. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd.,

(E.D.N.Y. 2013) (“A proper objection is one that identifies the specific portions of the R&R that the objector asserts are erroneous and provides a basis for this assertion.”), aff’d,

(2d Cir. 2014). In resolving objections, a “district judge may . . . receive further evidence.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b)(3). As Judge Marutollo noted, a party is entitled to an award of costs when the applicant has “adequately document[ed] and itemize[ed] the costs.” Incredible Foods Grp., LLC v. Unifoods, S.A. De C.V., No. 14-CV-5207 (KAM)(JO),

, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016). An invoice documenting a service fee provides sufficient evidence of such cost. See Loc. 363, United Elec. Workers of Am., Int'l Union of Journeymen & Allied Trades v. Laser Lite Elec., Inc., No. 17-CV-0267,

, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2017). Because the Petitioner has now adduced evidence supporting the request for an additional $75 in costs associated with this case, I find

that this cost should appropriately be included in the award amount. I review the remaining, unobjected to portions of the R&R for clear error, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition; accord State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grafman,

(E.D.N.Y. 2013), and find none. Therefore, I order that the award of costs incurred in pursuing this action be increased by $75 and otherwise adopt the R&R in full. Petitioner’s motion is granted in part, and the Award is confirmed.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee ERIC KOMITEE United States District Judge

Dated: September 20, 2024 Brooklyn, New York