Guarnaschelli v East Riv. Med. Imaging, P.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 31754(U) May 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 656099/2023 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2025 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 656099/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 656099/2023 ROBERT GUARNASCHELLI, JOHN DUNNE, NICHOLAS CAROVILLANO, MOTION DATE 10/02/2024
Plaintiffs, MOTION SEQ. NO. 006
-v- DECISION + ORDER ON EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C., MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 were read on this motion to/for ORDER MAINTAIN CLASS ACTION .
In this class action, brought on behalf of patients of defendant whose personally
identifying information and/or protected health information was accessed and exposed to
unauthorized third parties through a data breach of defendant’s records system, plaintiffs move
unopposed for final approval of the parties’ settlement agreement. After engaging in
comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties executed a settlement and release agreement
on April 16, 2024 to resolve the case for $1,850,000 (NYSCEF Doc No 55). By decision and
order dated June 24, 2024, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, conditionally
certified the settlement class, and approved the proposed notice of settlement (NYSCEF Doc No
46). Pursuant to the June 24, 2024 order, plaintiffs’ counsel caused the settlement administrator
to send, via mail and e-mail, the notice of settlement to all class members identified on the class
list. The settlement administrator received 20,403 claim form submissions, nine opt-outs, and no
objections to the settlement (NYSCEF Doc No 54). Plaintiffs now seek final approval of the
proposed settlement agreement.
656099/2023 GUARNASCHELLI, ROBERT vs. EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C. Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 006
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2025 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 656099/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
Pursuant to CPLR § 908, court approval is required for any compromise of a class action.
A court may approve the settlement of a class action only if the proposed settlement is fair,
adequate, reasonable and in the best interest of class members (Gordon v Verizon Commcs., 148
AD3d 146, 156 [1st Dept 2017]). This review must consider the following factors: 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 (id., citing In re Cold Indus
Shareholder Litig. v Cold Indus., 155 AD2d 154, 160 [1st Dept 1990]). Approval is appropriate
when “the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive
negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to
class representatives or segments of the class and falls within the range of possible approval” (In
re Initial Pub. Offerings Sec. Litig., 226 FRD 186, 191 [SDNY 2005]).
Here, the parties, through experienced and competent counsel, engaged in litigation and
arms-length negotiations before arriving at this proposed settlement. The final settlement fund
will provide the significant benefit of immediate payment to impacted class members. Further,
continued litigation in this matter poses significant risks to the class in establishing both liability
and damages, and resolution would depend on the determination of complex factual and legal
issues. All parties fully support the settlement and plaintiffs’ counsel recommends approval
based upon their experience and detailed knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the case.
Finally, though not all class members received notice, “[i]t is widely recognized that for the due
process standard to be met it is not necessary that every class member receive actual notice, so
long as class counsel acted reasonably in selecting means likely to inform persons affected,” and
counsel did act reasonably in mailing and e-mailing the notice as directed by the court’s June 24,
656099/2023 GUARNASCHELLI, ROBERT vs. EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C. Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 006
2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2025 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 656099/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
2024 order (In re Prudential Securities Inc. Ltd. Partnerships Litig., 164 FRD 362, 368 [SDNY
1996] [citing Weigner v The City of New York, 852 F2d 646, 649 [2d Cir 1988]]).
Awards, Fees, and Costs
Counsel for the class seeks an award of $616,666.66 in fees, which constitutes one third
of the gross settlement fund, plus $12,381.77 in litigation costs (NYSCEF Doc No 54). Pursuant
to CPLR § 909, fees are awarded “based on the reasonable value of legal services rendered.” The
fees sought are reasonable in light of the ultimate benefit to the class, the complexity of the facts
and law, the amount of time spent litigating and settling this action, and that the case was taken
on a contingency fee basis (Gilliam v Addicts Rehab. Ctr. Fund, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23016, 5
[SDNY 2008] [granting one-third of the settlement fund]; cf Sheridan v Police Pension Fund,
Art. 2, 76 AD2d 800 [1st Dept 1980] [factors to consider include risks of litigation, standing of
counsel, complexity of the case, and amount recovered]).
The service award of $1,000 each to plaintiffs Robert Guarnaschelli, Nicolas Carovillano,
Eslaye Devine, John Dunne, Rachael Kuecher, Jennifer Lowe, Alba Avila Quintana, Alan
Resnick, and Raymond Nardo is reasonable, given the time they invested by providing counsel
with relevant documents, participating in litigation, and assisting in the settlement process
(Johnson v Brody, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93260 *4 [SDNY 2023] [“Service Awards of
$1,000.00 each to each of the [] Named Plaintiffs” approved as “fair and reasonable under the
circumstances”]; Local 1180, Communs. Workers of Am. v City of New York, 392 F Supp 3d 361,
376 [SDNY 2019] [approving the “relatively modest” service awards of $1,000 each]).
The administrative expenses are not specified in the instant motion (NYSCEF Doc Nos
68 [proposed order providing that “costs of Settlement Administration . . . shall be paid in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement], 55 [settlement agreement defines
656099/2023 GUARNASCHELLI, ROBERT vs. EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C. Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 006
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2025 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 656099/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
administrative expenses as “all charges and expenses incurred by the Settlement Administrator as
agreed upon by both Parties or by order of the Court in the administration of this Settlement”]).
Therefore, the parties will be directed to submit additional papers detailing the fees sought.
Accordingly, it is
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Guarnaschelli v East Riv. Med. Imaging, P.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 31754(U) May 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 656099/2023 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2025 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 656099/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 656099/2023 ROBERT GUARNASCHELLI, JOHN DUNNE, NICHOLAS CAROVILLANO, MOTION DATE 10/02/2024
Plaintiffs, MOTION SEQ. NO. 006
-v- DECISION + ORDER ON EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C., MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 were read on this motion to/for ORDER MAINTAIN CLASS ACTION .
In this class action, brought on behalf of patients of defendant whose personally
identifying information and/or protected health information was accessed and exposed to
unauthorized third parties through a data breach of defendant’s records system, plaintiffs move
unopposed for final approval of the parties’ settlement agreement. After engaging in
comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties executed a settlement and release agreement
on April 16, 2024 to resolve the case for $1,850,000 (NYSCEF Doc No 55). By decision and
order dated June 24, 2024, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, conditionally
certified the settlement class, and approved the proposed notice of settlement (NYSCEF Doc No
46). Pursuant to the June 24, 2024 order, plaintiffs’ counsel caused the settlement administrator
to send, via mail and e-mail, the notice of settlement to all class members identified on the class
list. The settlement administrator received 20,403 claim form submissions, nine opt-outs, and no
objections to the settlement (NYSCEF Doc No 54). Plaintiffs now seek final approval of the
proposed settlement agreement.
656099/2023 GUARNASCHELLI, ROBERT vs. EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C. Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 006
1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2025 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 656099/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
Pursuant to CPLR § 908, court approval is required for any compromise of a class action.
A court may approve the settlement of a class action only if the proposed settlement is fair,
adequate, reasonable and in the best interest of class members (Gordon v Verizon Commcs., 148
AD3d 146, 156 [1st Dept 2017]). This review must consider the following factors: 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 (id., citing In re Cold Indus
Shareholder Litig. v Cold Indus., 155 AD2d 154, 160 [1st Dept 1990]). Approval is appropriate
when “the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive
negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to
class representatives or segments of the class and falls within the range of possible approval” (In
re Initial Pub. Offerings Sec. Litig., 226 FRD 186, 191 [SDNY 2005]).
Here, the parties, through experienced and competent counsel, engaged in litigation and
arms-length negotiations before arriving at this proposed settlement. The final settlement fund
will provide the significant benefit of immediate payment to impacted class members. Further,
continued litigation in this matter poses significant risks to the class in establishing both liability
and damages, and resolution would depend on the determination of complex factual and legal
issues. All parties fully support the settlement and plaintiffs’ counsel recommends approval
based upon their experience and detailed knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the case.
Finally, though not all class members received notice, “[i]t is widely recognized that for the due
process standard to be met it is not necessary that every class member receive actual notice, so
long as class counsel acted reasonably in selecting means likely to inform persons affected,” and
counsel did act reasonably in mailing and e-mailing the notice as directed by the court’s June 24,
656099/2023 GUARNASCHELLI, ROBERT vs. EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C. Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 006
2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2025 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 656099/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
2024 order (In re Prudential Securities Inc. Ltd. Partnerships Litig., 164 FRD 362, 368 [SDNY
1996] [citing Weigner v The City of New York, 852 F2d 646, 649 [2d Cir 1988]]).
Awards, Fees, and Costs
Counsel for the class seeks an award of $616,666.66 in fees, which constitutes one third
of the gross settlement fund, plus $12,381.77 in litigation costs (NYSCEF Doc No 54). Pursuant
to CPLR § 909, fees are awarded “based on the reasonable value of legal services rendered.” The
fees sought are reasonable in light of the ultimate benefit to the class, the complexity of the facts
and law, the amount of time spent litigating and settling this action, and that the case was taken
on a contingency fee basis (Gilliam v Addicts Rehab. Ctr. Fund, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23016, 5
[SDNY 2008] [granting one-third of the settlement fund]; cf Sheridan v Police Pension Fund,
Art. 2, 76 AD2d 800 [1st Dept 1980] [factors to consider include risks of litigation, standing of
counsel, complexity of the case, and amount recovered]).
The service award of $1,000 each to plaintiffs Robert Guarnaschelli, Nicolas Carovillano,
Eslaye Devine, John Dunne, Rachael Kuecher, Jennifer Lowe, Alba Avila Quintana, Alan
Resnick, and Raymond Nardo is reasonable, given the time they invested by providing counsel
with relevant documents, participating in litigation, and assisting in the settlement process
(Johnson v Brody, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93260 *4 [SDNY 2023] [“Service Awards of
$1,000.00 each to each of the [] Named Plaintiffs” approved as “fair and reasonable under the
circumstances”]; Local 1180, Communs. Workers of Am. v City of New York, 392 F Supp 3d 361,
376 [SDNY 2019] [approving the “relatively modest” service awards of $1,000 each]).
The administrative expenses are not specified in the instant motion (NYSCEF Doc Nos
68 [proposed order providing that “costs of Settlement Administration . . . shall be paid in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement], 55 [settlement agreement defines
656099/2023 GUARNASCHELLI, ROBERT vs. EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C. Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 006
3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2025 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 656099/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
administrative expenses as “all charges and expenses incurred by the Settlement Administrator as
agreed upon by both Parties or by order of the Court in the administration of this Settlement”]).
Therefore, the parties will be directed to submit additional papers detailing the fees sought.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion for final approval of the settlement is granted and the
settlement is approved based on the determination that the settlement as set forth in the
settlement agreement is fair and reasonable; and it is further
ORDERED that the class members and named plaintiffs release all claims against
defendant relating to the class action as set forth in the settlement agreement; and it is further
ORDERED that class counsel’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of $616,666.66 and
litigation costs in the amount of $12,381.77 are approved and awarded to class counsel; and it is
further
ORDERED that the service fees of $1,000 each to plaintiffs Robert Guarnaschelli,
Nicolas Carovillano, Eslaye Devine, John Dunne, Rachael Kuecher, Jennifer Lowe, Alba Avila
Quintana, Alan Resnick, and Raymond Nardo is approved and awarded to them; and it is further
ORDERED that within twenty days of entry of this order, plaintiffs’ counsel shall submit
the amount of administrative fees incurred in connection with this action; within fifteen days
thereafter, defendant’s counsel may submit any objections to the fees and costs sought by
plaintiff; submissions shall be submitted via NYSCEF and emailed to the Part 47 Clerk; and it is
ORDERED that the court retains jurisdiction over this action for the purposes of
enforcing the settlement agreement, and the parties shall abide by all the terms of the settlement
agreement which are incorporated herein; and it is further
656099/2023 GUARNASCHELLI, ROBERT vs. EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C. Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 006
4 of 5 [* 4] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/2025 01:01 PM INDEX NO. 656099/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025
ORDERED that the case is dismissed according to the terms of the settlement agreement
and the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
5/13/2025 DATE PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□ X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
656099/2023 GUARNASCHELLI, ROBERT vs. EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C. Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 006
5 of 5 [* 5]