18 BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN v. HERCULES (2026)

The following papers efiled on NYSCEF were used on this motion: 3-12.

Upon the foregoing papers, having heard oral argument on June 15, 2026, and due deliberation having been had, the within motion is determined as follows.

Background

This is an application to the Court in a special proceeding to settle an infant's claim for the sum of $13,650.00.

On November 1, 2023, an accident occurred at the intersection of Rogers Avenue and Claredon Road in Kings County, New York, when the Respondent's vehicle ran a red light and struck the vehicle in which the infant Petitioner, K.L., was a passenger. The infant, born in 2013, was transported by ambulance to Kings County Hospital Center, where she reported pain in her neck and both legs. She received pain medication and was discharged with instructions to follow up with her pediatrician. (See NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 8.)

The infant subsequently received treatment at Hudson Pro Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, beginning with a physical therapy evaluation on November 20, 2023, which documented pain in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine, headaches, and pain in both legs. On December 20, 2023, a chiropractor examined the infant and diagnosed segmental and somatic dysfunction of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions, along with cervicalgia, pain in the thoracic spine, low back pain, and headaches. The infant then underwent a course of chiropractic treatment three times per week and physical therapy, continuing through June 20, 2024. The infant was partially disabled for approximately eight months because of these injuries. (See NYSCEF Doc Nos. 3, 8.)

A follow-up examination conducted on July 15, 2025 indicated that the infant had fully recovered from the injuries sustained in the accident, with no remaining disability, defect, or impairment. The infant can perform all activities at her pre-accident level. Respondent's insurance company offered $13,650, and the guardian Petitioner seeks to confirm the infant compromise agreement in the special proceeding. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 8.)

Petitioner's Contentions

The guardian Petitioner contends that the case was investigated, with medical and hospital reports obtained and exchanged with Respondent's insurance company. The guardian Petitioner further contends that she entered into settlement negotiations with Respondent's insurance company and, because of said negotiations, the parties reached a settlement agreement in the amount set forth herein. The guardian Petitioner alleges that the infant was partially disabled for approximately eight months because of the injuries sustained in this accident. Medical and treatment expenses were submitted to and paid by the No-Fault carrier. The guardian Petitioner contends that the infant has enjoyed a good recovery from the injuries sustained and is no longer experiencing complaints related to the accident. The guardian Petitioner has consulted with counsel and has been advised that it would be in the best interests of the infant to accept the settlement sum offered. Accordingly, the guardian Petitioner argues that acceptance of the settlement is fair and reasonable under the circumstances and in the best interests of the infant. The guardian Petitioner requests that this petition be granted in its entirety. (See NYSCEF Doc Nos. 2, 8.)

Discussion

Infant compromise proceedings under Article 12 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) serve to safeguard funds that an infant person receives through settlement or judgment. To protect the interests of infants, no settlement is enforceable without judicial approval, and the court must scrutinize a settlement's fairness and reasonableness to ensure it serves the infant's best interests (see Vincent C. Alexander, Prac Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPLR 1207; see Edionwe v Hussain, 7 AD3d 751 [2d Dept 2004]; Valdimer v Mount Vernon Hebrew Camps, Inc., 9 NY2d 21 [1961]). The Supreme Court has authority to approve the settlement of an infant's action pursuant to CPLR 1207 and 1208 (see Barretta v NBKL Corp., 298 AD2d 539 [2d Dept 2002].) Within this authority, considerable amount of discretion is permitted by a court in inquiring into the reasonableness and fairness of the settlement of an infant's cause of action. (See Vincent C. Alexander, Prac Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPLR 1207). When exercising this discretion, before approving any infant compromise, the court may examine: (1) the nature and extent of the damages sustained by the infant and present physical condition; (2) the proposed distribution considering any need for medical treatment and its costs; and (3) the availability of additional insurance or assets against which the infant plaintiff might collect (see Edionwe v Hussain, 7 AD3d 751 [2d Dept 2004]). Additionally, under CPLR 1207, a court may not dictate terms against the infant plaintiff's guardian's wishes unless the proposal is not in the infant's best interests (see Vincent C. Alexander, Prac Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPLR 1207). Grounds for denial of an infant compromise include no evidence of any diligent inquiry into the availability of additional insurance or assets against which the infant plaintiff might collect (see Edionwe v Hussain, 7 AD3d 751).

Applying these principles to the proposed settlement of $13,650, the Court finds grounds for denial. While the proposed attorney's fee of one-third constitutes reasonable and suitable compensation consistent with the applicable law and does not constitute a basis for denial, the underlying settlement amount itself is unreasonable and not in the infant's best interests (see Barretta v NBKL Corp., 298 AD2d 539). As noted in the physician's affirmation, the infant sustained injuries to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine areas, along with headaches and leg pain, requiring physical therapy and chiropractic treatment from November 2023 through June 2024. The infant was partially disabled for approximately eight months because of these injuries. Although the infant has fully recovered from the injuries with no remaining disability, defect, or impairment, the proposed settlement of $13,650 fails to adequately compensate for the nature and extent of the injuries sustained, leaving the infant with only approximately $8,684.28 after deduction of the attorney's fee and disbursements. Petitioners' counsel should make a diligent effort to seek additional compensation or to negotiate further with the subject insurance company, considering the inadequacy of the proposed settlement amount (see Edionwe v Hussain, 7 AD3d 751).

Conclusion

Accordingly, the proposed infant compromise is denied, and the parties are directed to seek additional compensation from the insurance company to ensure that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the infant.

It is hereby SO ORDERED.

Aaron D. Maslow, J.