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 proposed settlement for E.S.’s children with disabilities.
E.S., M.S., and N.S., and the New York City Department of Education; the approval specifically concerned the settlement on behalf of the minor children M.S. and N.S.
What happened
E.S. and the New York City Department of Education asked the court to approve a settlement of the remaining claims, including claims brought on behalf of M.S. and N.S., E.S.’s children with disabilities.
Because the settlement involved minors, the court reviewed whether it served the children’s best interests and whether the proposed services, fees, and costs were reasonable. The court also considered the parties’ submissions under the applicable federal and New York standards.
Judge Cronan found that the proposed settlement was in M.S.’s and N.S.’s best interests and that the proposed agreements, services, fees, and costs were reasonable. The court therefore approved the proposed settlement.
The detailed version
- E.S. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-09038
- John Cronan
- Nov. 1, 2022
Background
E.S. and the New York City Department of Education agreed to seek approval of a settlement resolving the remaining claims in the case, specifically the First and Fourth Causes of Action. E.S. sought approval on behalf of M.S. and N.S., identified in the opinion as her children with disabilities.
Legal standard
Local Civil Rule 83.2(a)(1) requires court approval before parties settle an action or claims on behalf of a minor child. The court explained that its review follows New York statutes and rules and focuses on two issues: whether the proposed settlement is in the child’s best interests and whether the proposed attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable. The opinion 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 had experienced counsel, and there had been enough information gathering to allow counsel to evaluate the case intelligently.
Ruling
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court found that the proposed 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 therefore approved the proposed settlement. The opinion does not state the settlement’s specific terms or amounts.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.