Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
New York has a well-established public policy favoring compromises of litigation, especially class litigation. (Hallock v. State of N.Y. (1984) 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230.)
Judicial approval is required for any dismissal, discontinuance, or compromise of claims brought on a class basis. (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 908; Fiala v. Met Life Ins. Co. (2010) 899 N.Y.S.2d 531, 537.)
Section 908 of Civil Practice Law and Rules does not set forth specific criteria for evaluating proposed class action settlements. (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 908.) New York courts regularly refer to the federal standards when determining whether to approve a class action settlement. (Fiala v. Met Life Ins. Co. (2010) 899 N.Y.S.2d 531, 537.) Accordingly, the courts examine "the fairness of the [s]ettlement, its adequacy, its reasonableness and the best interests of the class members." (Id.; Rosenfeld v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1997) 237 A.D.2d 199.)
The relevant factors for a court’s review when determining whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate include "the likelihood of success, the extent of support from the parties, the judgment of counsel, the presence of bargaining in good faith, and the nature of the issues of law and fact." (In re Colt Indus. Shareholder Litig. (1990) 155 A.D.2d 154, 160.)
A court should also "balanc[e] the value of [a proposed] [s]ettlement against the present value of the anticipated recovery following a trial on the merits, discounted for the inherent risks of litigation." (Klein v. Robert's Am. Gourmet Foods, Inc. (2006) 28 A.D.3d 63, 73.)
"The determination whether a settlement is reasonable does not involve the use of a mathematical equation yielding a particularized sum. Instead, there is a range of reasonableness with regard to a settlement – a range which recognizes the uncertainties of law and fact in any particular case and the concomitant risks and costs necessarily inherent in taking any litigation to completion." (Frank v. Eastman Kodak Co., 228 F.R.D. 174, 186 [W.D.N.Y. 2005].) New York courts grant significant weight to the judgment of experienced counsel in determining the fairness of a class action settlement. (In re Colt Indus., 553 N.Y.S.2d at 141; Fiala, 899 N.Y.S.2d at 538.)
Under New York law, support for a proposed settlement from the opposing parties and class members demonstrates its fairness and reasonableness. (Hibbs v. Marvel Enters., 797 N.Y.S.2d 463, 464 [N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2005]; Fiala v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 899 N.Y.S.2d 531, 539 [N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010].) A class settlement’s fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness are presumed when "a class settlement is reached in arm’s-length negotiations between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery." (Fiala, 899 N.Y.S.2d at 538; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 116 [2d Cir. 2005].)
Richmond County, NY
Jan 24, 2023
Torts - Other (New York Labor Law)
New York County, NY
Nov 01, 2022
Commercial Division
New York County, NY
Oct 07, 2022
Commercial Division
Mar 15, 2016
Disposed-Court Date/Application Pending
New York County, NY
Sep 29, 2022
Commercial - Business Entity
New York County, NY
Aug 31, 2022
Commercial Division
Please wait a moment while we load this page.