Smith v. Gutierres
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-06086
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Jason M. Smith v. Jimmy Gutierres, Judge Wang approved a $2,500 settlement for J.M.S., Smith’s minor son, after Smith died.
J.M.S., the minor child receiving the $2,500 settlement; Selina Livingston, who acts on his behalf; and the defendants, NYPD Officers Jimmy Gutierres, Christopher Gordon, and Kevin Viola.
What happened
In Jason M. Smith v. Jimmy Gutierres, et al., Jason M. Smith sued New York City police officers over a 2018 physical altercation, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Smith died in 2023, and the court later substituted Selina Livingston on behalf of Smith’s minor child, J.M.S.
The parties reached a $2,500 settlement. Because the settlement was for a child, the court reviewed whether it was fair, reasonable, and in J.M.S.’s best interests. The court considered the negotiations, the risks and costs of continuing the case, and Livingston’s understanding of the settlement.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang granted the motion to approve the child’s settlement and directed the Clerk to close the motion. The opinion does not state that the underlying claims were otherwise resolved by a trial or merits judgment.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Gutierres · No. 1:21-cv-06086
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 21, 2025
Background
Jason M. Smith brought this case against New York Police Department Officers Jimmy Gutierres, Christopher Gordon, and Kevin Viola. He alleged that the officers violated his constitutional rights in connection with a physical altercation on September 27, 2018. Smith died on July 9, 2023.
Smith’s mother, Carol Smith, first sought to replace him as the plaintiff, but the court denied that request. The court then directed its Pro Se Office to seek counsel for Smith’s minor son. Selina Livingston, the mother and legal guardian of J.M.S., later appeared through counsel. On July 2, 2025, the court substituted Livingston as plaintiff on behalf of J.M.S.
The parties reached a settlement in principle for a total award of $2,500. Livingston opened an account in trust for J.M.S. and stated that she understood her responsibilities concerning the money received for him.
Legal standard
Under the Southern District of New York’s local rules, a settlement involving a child must be approved by a court. The court must determine whether the settlement protects the child’s best interests and whether its terms, including any fees and expenses, are fair and reasonable. In making that decision, the court considers the chances of success, the case’s complexity and expense, its likely duration, and other factors bearing on whether the settlement is a sound compromise.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the settlement was reached through arm’s-length negotiations, including negotiations before the court and through the Southern District of New York Mediation Program. It found no evidence of collusion.
The court also found that the settlement was adequate considering the case’s complexity, risks, expenses, duration, and possible rewards. It noted risks associated with the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including the need to prove deliberate indifference rather than mere negligence, as well as risks arising from Smith’s death. The court gave substantial weight to Livingston’s statement that she understood these risks and believed she had acted in J.M.S.’s best interests.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang held that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in J.M.S.’s best interests. The motion to approve the infant compromise order was granted. The Clerk was directed to close the motion identified as ECF 113.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.