McInnis v. City of New York

Background

The court considered declarations submitted in support of a proposed order to settle claims brought by Jennifer McInnis, individually and on behalf of her infant children, against the City of New York and Treasure Pray. Under the court’s local rule and New York law, a court must approve a settlement involving an infant. The required submissions must provide information about the infant’s representative, the infant, the circumstances and extent of the claim, the settlement terms, other reimbursement, related claims, the attorney’s recommendation and services, medical records for personal-injury claims, and whether there is good cause to excuse the infant’s appearance at a hearing.

Deficiencies in the submissions

The court found that McInnis’s declaration addressed only her identity and relationship to the infant plaintiffs and the settlement terms. It did not address six other categories required by New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 1208(a). Counsel’s declaration indicated that counsel recommended the settlement and was acting in the infant plaintiffs’ interests, but it did not adequately address the services counsel had provided or whether good cause existed to excuse a hearing attended by the infant plaintiffs. The court also required a clearer statement that counsel was acting in the children’s best interests, more detail explaining why the settlement amounts were fair and reasonable, and information needed to evaluate the requested attorney fees, including contemporaneous time records, the timekeepers’ backgrounds, and the retainer agreement.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit, by May 23, 2025, a supplemental declaration from McInnis addressing the six missing categories under § 1208(a). It also ordered a supplemental declaration from counsel addressing the reason for excusing a hearing, counsel’s best-interests determination, the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement amounts, and the services counsel had rendered. Counsel also had to provide contemporaneous billing records, descriptions of the timekeepers’ backgrounds, and the retainer agreement. The order required additional submissions and did not state that the proposed settlement was approved or rejected.