Magwood v. City of New York

Background

Edwin Magwood sued the City of New York and others individually and on behalf of his infant child, T.M. The pending request concerned a proposed order to settle the plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Indira Gamoneda. Because the proposed settlement involved a child, the plaintiffs needed court approval under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 83.2(a), which requires an application that follows New York’s procedures for approving infant settlements as closely as possible.

Required information

New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 1208 requires a declaration from the child’s representative addressing specified matters, including the representative’s relationship to the child; the child’s identity, age, and residence; the circumstances giving rise to the claim; the child’s injuries or damages; the settlement terms; the facts surrounding the settlement; other reimbursement; and any related claims by the representative or family members. The child’s attorney must also explain why the settlement is recommended, confirm that the attorney is acting in the child’s interests, and describe the services provided. Personal-injury settlements also require medical and hospital reports.

The court explained that the child, the representative, and the attorney generally must appear at a hearing unless there is good cause to excuse attendance. The court considers factors such as the nature and permanence of the injuries, medical recovery, the child’s age, the settlement amount compared with the injuries, and the hardship of appearing.

Deficiencies in the submissions

Magwood’s declaration addressed only his identity and relationship to T.M. and the settlement terms. It did not address the other six matters required by Section 1208(a). Counsel’s declaration explained why she recommended the settlement and suggested that she was acting in T.M.’s best interests, but it did not describe the services she had provided or explain whether good cause existed to excuse T.M. from appearing. The court also sought a clearer statement that counsel was acting in T.M.’s best interests, more detail explaining why the settlement with Gamoneda was fair and reasonable, contemporaneous billing records, information about the timekeepers’ backgrounds, and the retainer agreement.

The court noted that New York law permits a settlement of less than $10,000 for a child to be distributed to the child’s representative. But counsel had not explained why paying T.M.’s settlement to Magwood would be better for T.M. than depositing the funds into an interest-bearing account for T.M.’s future use.

Ruling and required submissions

Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered the plaintiffs to submit, by May 23, 2025, a supplemental declaration from Magwood addressing the six missing Section 1208(a) matters. The court also ordered a supplemental declaration from counsel addressing whether there was good cause to excuse T.M. from the hearing; counsel’s best-interests representation; the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement; the services provided; billing records, timekeeper information, and the retainer agreement; and why payment to Magwood was preferable to an interest-bearing account. The order did not approve the proposed settlement at that time.