Shim-Larkin v. City of New York

Background

Heena Shim-Larkin, appearing without a lawyer, sued the City of New York over alleged discrimination related to her employment as a lifeguard at the Tompkins Square mini pool during the summer of 2015. The City moved to enforce a settlement agreement that it argued was formed during a March 6, 2024 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis.

During that conference, the court recited terms of the alleged settlement on the record and asked Shim-Larkin and the City whether they understood and agreed to them. Shim-Larkin answered yes. She later filed a letter stating that the settlement was no longer viable. The City then moved to enforce the agreement. Judge Willis issued a report and recommendation, commonly called an R&R, recommending that the motion be granted.

Legal Standard and Analysis

Judge Torres reviewed Shim-Larkin’s objections under the standards governing objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court reviewed some objections in detail and reviewed other portions for clear error, meaning a clear mistake apparent from the record.

The court applied the four-factor test from Winston v. Mediafare Entertainment Corp. for deciding whether parties formed an enforceable settlement contract without signing a final written document. The factors ask whether the parties reserved the right not to be bound without a writing, whether they partly performed, whether they agreed on all terms, and whether the type of contract is normally put in writing.

Judge Torres rejected Shim-Larkin’s arguments. The court concluded that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 2104 did not prevent enforcement of the settlement because the agreement was made on the record in open court. The court also concluded that draft agreements containing merger clauses did not show that Shim-Larkin had reserved the right not to be bound during the March 6 conference. According to the court, no such reservation was made when the settlement terms were stated and accepted on the record.

The court further rejected Shim-Larkin’s argument that the parties had not agreed to all material terms because the agreement did not expressly state that it would reference New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5003-a(b). The court noted that the payment deadline and the reference to that provision were stated during the conference, and Shim-Larkin did not object. The court also rejected her argument concerning the settlement amount, explaining that an on-the-record settlement functions similarly to a written settlement and that the amount did not control the analysis.

Disposition

The court found no clear error in the portions of Judge Willis’s R&R to which Shim-Larkin did not object. Judge Torres overruled Shim-Larkin’s objections, adopted the R&R in full, and granted the City’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.