Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 22, 2025

Torres v. Patricias Morris Park Corp.

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:23-cv-07820
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
FlsaEmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Torres v. Patricias Morris Park Corp., Judge Lehrburger approved the FLSA settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

The settlement and dismissal affect Braynie​l Torres, the others similarly situated whom he represented in the action, Patricias Morris Park Corp., and Patricia Borgognone.

What happened

Torres v. Patricias Morris Park Corp. was a lawsuit seeking damages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Braynie​l Torres brought it individually and for others similarly situated against Patricias Morris Park Corp. and Patricia Borgognone.

The parties jointly asked the court to approve their settlement. The court reviewed the agreement and considered the risks and costs of continuing, possible recovery, attorney’s fees, the parties’ negotiations, and the possibility of fraud or collusion. It noted that the agreement had no confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions and that the release was limited to wage-and-hour claims.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable and approved it. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger then dismissed and discontinued the case in its entirety, with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement, and directed that the case be closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Torres v. Patricias Morris Park Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-07820
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
July 22, 2025

Background

Braynie​l Torres sued Patricias Morris Park Corp. and Patricia Borgognone for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal wage-and-hour law, and the New York Labor Law. Torres brought the action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The parties submitted a joint request for approval of their settlement agreement, a fully executed copy of which was submitted on July 21, 2025.

Settlement Review

The court explained that it had to determine whether the FLSA settlement was fair and reasonable and resulted from arm’s-length negotiations rather than employer overreaching. The court had assisted the parties through mediation and reviewed the settlement agreement and their letter. It considered, among other things, prior proceedings, the risks and costs of continuing the case, the possible recovery, the parties’ negotiations, attorney’s fees, and the possibility of fraud or collusion.

The court noted that the agreement contained no confidentiality restrictions or non-disparagement provisions, limited the plaintiffs’ release to wage-and-hour claims, and provided attorney’s fees within a fair, reasonable, and acceptable range.

Ruling

The court found the settlement agreement fair and reasonable and approved it. Because the case was resolved by settlement, the court dismissed and discontinued it in its entirety, with prejudice, without costs or fees to any party except as provided in the settlement agreement. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions and deadlines and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.