Melendez v. Ethical Culture Fieldston School

Background

The court addressed two motions. First, the plaintiffs sought an infant compromise order approving a proposed settlement of the claims of infant plaintiff Y.S. Second, The Cochran Firm, which previously represented the plaintiffs, sought to enforce its claimed attorney’s lien against the settlement proceeds under New York Judiciary Law § 475.

The plaintiffs’ settlement motion relied on the court’s local rule requiring compliance with New York’s procedures for approving settlements involving a child. Those procedures generally require the moving party, the child, and the child’s attorney to appear before the court unless there is good cause to excuse attendance.

Infant Settlement Motion

The court found good cause to excuse a live hearing. It had already held several conferences about settlement and was familiar with the facts underlying Y.S.’s claims and the nature and severity of Y.S.’s injuries. The court also concluded that requiring Y.S. to attend could be overwhelming and could cause her to miss school or other important activities.

The court did not approve or deny the proposed settlement in this order. Instead, it noted that the plaintiffs’ filing referred to their retainer agreement with current counsel, Nathaniel B. Smith, but did not attach the agreement. The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental letter attaching the retainer agreement by August 28, 2026. The plaintiffs may request that the agreement be sealed if they make an appropriate showing.

The Cochran Firm’s Lien Motion

The court stated that New York Judiciary Law § 475 requires a hearing to determine whether The Cochran Firm was discharged for cause and, if not, the amount of its fee based on the reasonable value of its services. The firm also requested a hearing to the extent credibility questions were involved.

The court scheduled a telephone hearing on The Cochran Firm’s motion for September 17, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The firm may ask the court to cancel the hearing if it no longer requests one. No submissions other than the retainer agreement were required before the hearing.

Disposition and Classification

This order does not resolve the proposed settlement or The Cochran Firm’s lien claim. It excuses the live hearing for the infant settlement motion, orders additional documentation, and schedules a hearing on the lien motion. It is classified as a procedural order because it addresses settlement-approval procedures, attorney fees, and scheduling rather than deciding the underlying claims.