B.G. et al v. City of New York et al

S.D. New York

B.G. et al v. City of New York et al

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 17, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-03761·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

B.G. etal, 23-CV-3761 (KPF) (RFT) Plaintiff, -against- ORDER CITY OF NEW YORK et al, Defendant.

ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY, United States Magistrate Judge: The parties have consented to my jurisdiction to decide the pending motion to enter proposed infant compromise orders. (See ECF 97.) “When approving an infant’s compromise, the court [also] has an obligation to approve the reasonableness of attorney’s fees.” Sanchez v. MTV Networks, 10-CV-7854 (TPG), 2012 WL 2094047, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2012), aff'd, 525 F. App'x 4 (2d Cir. 2013). The declaration submitted by counsel for Plaintiff Children (ECF 94) does not provide the information needed for me to assess the reasonableness of their attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, counsel for Plaintiff Children shall, by December 23, 2025, either (1) submit a supplemental affidavit describing their attorneys’ fees in connection with the proposed settlement and attaching their retainer agreements and contemporaneous billing records, or (2) submit a letter brief explaining why such a such a filing is not required in this case.

SO ORDERED. DATED: December 17, 2025 New York, NY \ I ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

B.G. etal, 23-CV-3761 (KPF) (RFT) Plaintiff, -against- ORDER CITY OF NEW YORK et al, Defendant.

ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY, United States Magistrate Judge: The parties have consented to my jurisdiction to decide the pending motion to enter proposed infant compromise orders. (See ECF 97.) “When approving an infant’s compromise, the court [also] has an obligation to approve the reasonableness of attorney’s fees.” Sanchez v. MTV Networks, 10-CV-7854 (TPG), 2012 WL 2094047, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2012), aff'd, 525 F. App'x 4 (2d Cir. 2013). The declaration submitted by counsel for Plaintiff Children (ECF 94) does not provide the information needed for me to assess the reasonableness of their attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, counsel for Plaintiff Children shall, by December 23, 2025, either (1) submit a supplemental affidavit describing their attorneys’ fees in connection with the proposed settlement and attaching their retainer agreements and contemporaneous billing records, or (2) submit a letter brief explaining why such a such a filing is not required in this case.

SO ORDERED. DATED: December 17, 2025 New York, NY \ I ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY United States Magistrate Judge

B.G. et al v. City of New York et al, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

B.G. et al v. City of New York et al (B.G. et al v. City of New York et al) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related