CIT Bank N.A. v. Schiffman

── CIT Bank N.A. v. Schiffman ── Case No.: 23-487 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 18, 2026 Category: General 23-487-cv CIT Bank N.A. v. Schiffman UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER“). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CIT BANK N.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. No. 23-487-cv PAMELA SCHIFFMAN, JERRY SCHIFFMAN, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK CITY PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------  FOR APPELLANTS: Samuel Katz, Law Office of Samuel Katz, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY FOR APPELLEE: Steven Rosenfeld, Gross Polowy, LLC, Williamsville, NY Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Dora L. Irizarry, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Defendants-Appellants Pamela Schiffman and Jerry Schiffman appeal from a March 7, 2023 judgment of foreclosure and sale entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, J.), which awarded Plaintiff-Appellee CIT Bank, N.A. $445,096.55 in damages. The judgment followed an earlier grant of summary judgment in favor of CIT, which this Court affirmed. See CIT Bank N.A. v. Schiffman, 999 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2021). On appeal, the Schiffmans raise a number of evidentiary challenges to the District Court’s damages calculation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 2  “We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.” Carroll v. Trump, 124 F.4th 140, 157 (2d Cir. 2024). As a threshold matter, we conclude that the Schiffmans did not waive their evidentiary objections. They do not appear to have been directed to respond to CIT’s supplemental filing in November 2018 or warned that failure to do so would constitute a waiver of any objections. Waiver applies “[w]here parties receive clear notice of the consequences” of failing to object. See Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted). The Schiffmans timely exercised their right under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation within 14 days, which was their first clear invitation to challenge the admissibility of CIT’s e