E.S. v. New York City Department of Education
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-09038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In E.S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Cronan approved a partial settlement for M.S. and N.S., finding it reasonable and in their best interests.
E.S., M.S., and N.S., as well as the New York City Department of Education. The approved settlement specifically concerns claims brought on behalf of M.S. and N.S.
What happened
In E.S. v. New York City Department of Education, E.S. and the Department of Education asked the court to approve a partial settlement involving E.S.’s children, M.S. and N.S., who are described as children with disabilities. The settlement covered the case’s second and third causes of action.
Because the settlement was made on behalf of minor children, court approval was required. The court reviewed the submitted documents and considered whether the settlement was in the children’s best interests and whether the related services, attorney’s fees, and costs were reasonable.
The court found that the proposed partial settlement was in M.S.’s and N.S.’s best interests and that the agreements, services, fees, and costs were reasonable. Judge John P. Cronan ordered the parties’ proposed settlement.
The detailed version
- E.S. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-09038
- John Cronan
- Aug. 1, 2022
Background
E.S. sued the New York City Department of Education and sought approval of a partial settlement on behalf of M.S. and N.S., E.S.’s children, whom the opinion describes as children with disabilities. The proposed settlement resolved the Second and Third Causes of Action, but the opinion does not describe the settlement’s payment amount or other detailed terms.
Legal standard
Under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 83.2(a)(1), a settlement involving a minor child requires court approval. The court must follow New York’s statutes and rules as closely as possible. The court explained that it considers whether the proposed settlement is in the child’s best interests and whether the proposed attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable. It also noted a strong presumption that a settlement is fair and reasonable when it was reached through non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations, the parties have experienced counsel, and enough information was obtained to allow counsel to evaluate the matter intelligently.
Ruling
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the court found that the proposed partial settlement was in the best interests of M.S. and N.S. It also found the proposed agreements, services, fees, and costs reasonable. The court ordered the parties’ proposed Stipulation and Order at ECF 27. The opinion does not state that the entire action was resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.