Maloof v. NEW YORK LIFE GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY OF NY
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-03848
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Maloof v. New York Life, Judge Abrams discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration within 60 days.
Sadie Maloof and New York Life Group Insurance Company of New York; the action was closed after the reported settlement in principle, subject to a possible application to restore it within 60 days.
What happened
Sadie Maloof sued New York Life Group Insurance Company of New York, and the court was told that all parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without fees or costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 60 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any settlement-enforcement request would require the agreement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the applicable period. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Maloof v. NEW YORK LIFE GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY OF NY · No. 1:21-cv-03848
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that all parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, the settlement’s terms, or whether the parties completed a final settlement agreement.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without fees or costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s docket if an application to restore it was made within 60 days. It warned that an application filed after that period might be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the specified 30-day period. The order did not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.