Opinion
Index No.:156334/2013
02-22-2021
MARJORIE GRAY, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, THE CITY OF NEW YORK (DEPARTMENT OF SEWERS) METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, and MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, Defendants.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 46 DECISION/ORDER
Motion Seq. No. 001 LISA ANN SOKOLOFF, J.S.C. :
Recitation pursuant to CPLR 2219 (a) of the papers considered in this Order to Show Cause to Confirm A Stipulation Made In "Open Court": documents numbered 1, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 listed in the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System (NYSCEF).
In this personal injury action, the Law Office of Steven A. Epstein, PLLC (the Law Firm), attorney of record for plaintiff Marjorie Gray (Gray), moves for an order: (1) enforcing the parties' stipulation made in open court on March 15, 2019 (Doc No. 38); (2) directing the defendants, the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), the City of New York [Department of Sewers] Metropolitan Transit Authority (NYC), and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MBSTOA) (collectively, the City) to pay the proceeds of the settlement of this action in the amount of $80,000.00 (the Settlement Amount) directly to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County to be deposited into the appropriate account as follows: (a) defendant the New York City Transit Authority to pay the total sum of $52,500.00; (b) defendant the City of New York to pay the total sum of $27,500.00; (c) legal fees in the sum of $2,352.83 for reimbursement of disbursements (see Disbursements List, Doc No. 43) and $25,882.39 dollars for legal fees, totaling $28,235.22 (the Legal Fees) to be disbursed to the Law Office of Steven A. Epstein, PLLC in accordance with the retainer agreement signed by Gray; (d) an order directing the Clerk of the Court of the Supreme Court, New York County to pay the Legal Fees to the "Law Office of Steven A. Epstein, PLLC" from the money deposited with Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County by the defendants within 14 days of the receipt thereof; (e) after payment of the Legal Fees as directed by the court, the remaining balance of $51,764.78 shall continue to be held by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County subject to the a further court order directing the payment of the plaintiff's Medicare lien in the amount of $8,266.82 (the Medicare lien amount) to Optum on behalf of United Health Care; (f) that following the payment of the Legal Fees and the Medicare lien amount, the remaining balance of $43,497.96 shall continue to be held by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County pending further court order directing payment of said sum to plaintiff Gray; and (g) that Steven A. Epstein, Esq., (Epstein) on behalf of the Law Office of Steven A. Epstein, PLLC, shall be permitted and directed to execute such Stipulations of Discontinuance and additional settlement documents required by the City as the court may direct which do not require the plaintiff's signature to process the settlement and to obtain the aforesaid settlement proceeds from the City.
In the absence of a statutory reference upon which relief is sought, the court is considering the within application as one made pursuant to CPLR 2104. The court notes that CPLR 2104 is discussed in movant's legal analysis in support of the relief sought herein.
References to "Doc No." followed by a number refers to documents filed in NYSCEF.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This action was commenced against the City on or about July 11, 2013 by the service and filing of a Summons and Complaint (the Complaint) (Doc No. 1). Nearly a year after the Complaint was filed, on or about May 16, 2014, Gray consented to change attorneys (Doc No. 18) substituting then counsel, Georgen N. Statfeld, PC as attorney of record for Figman & Epstein LLP. On or about May 14, 2018 another consent to change attorney was filed (Doc No. 30) substituting Figman & Epstein for the Law Office of Steven A. Epstein, PLLC (the Law Firm) in accordance with a May 14, 2018 "Negligence Retainer" agreement (the Retainer Agreement) (Doc No. 40).
The Retainer Agreement provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"The undersigned, MARJORIE GRAY... hereby retains the LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, PLLC to prosecute or adjust a claim for damages arising from personal injuries sustained by MARJORIE GRAY on the 5th day of August 2012 ... In consideration of the services rendered and to be rendered by the Law Office of Steven A. Epstein, PLLC, [Gray] ... agrees to pay the [Law Firm] legal fees which shall be: Thirty-three and one-third (33½%) percent of the sum recovered, whether recovered by judgment, settlement or otherwise. ...
The Firm Agrees to Pay and Remain Liable for All Costs and Expenses. Regardless of the Outcome of This Matter. Percentage is computed on the gross sum recovered before deducting expenses and disbursements. The Law Office of Steven A. Epstein, PLLC agrees to pay all costs and expenses of the action and the Client will not remain responsible for all expenses and disbursements in the event the claim or action is dismissed or otherwise rejected by any court of competent jurisdiction."
The Complaint alleges that on August 5, 2012 Gray was on an "M 14" bus (the Bus) owned and operated by the City. The Bus driver, Gray asserts in the Complaint, "operated [the Bus] in a negligent manner" by opening "the exit door at an improper place where there was a defect in the street...and failed to properly discharge [Gray] in a safe place" and instead, discharged her as a passenger in an unauthorized stop "which caused [Gray] to fall" (the Complaint at ¶ 14). Specifically, Gray's "foot was caught in a defective condition of the public roadway consisting of broken and crumbling asphalt surrounding a catch basin leading to the sewer" (the Defective Condition) (Epstein aff at ¶ 3) (Doc No. 37). As a result, Gray fell to the ground "striking her face on the curb and sustaining serious injuries including bilateral mandibular fractures" (the Accident) (Epstein aff at ¶ 3). "These injuries necessitated surgery consisting of open reduction and internal fixation by implantation of metal fixation devices in both jaws" (id.). "The location of the aforesaid defective condition was just off the curb on the north side of West 14th Street, just west of its intersection with Seventh Avenue in the City, County and State of New York" (the Public Roadway) (id.). The Law Firm asserts that Gray interposed claims against NYCTA as its bus operator was negligent in stopping the bus at a dangerous location away from the curb thereby causing and/or contributing to the Accident. The claims against the CITY were for failing to properly repair and maintain the Public Roadway in a safe manner. Gray asserted that the defendant CITY used improper materials and repair technique at the location of the Accident, which predisposed the repair to failure and additionally failed to maintain the area in a safe condition for pedestrians, such as the plaintiff, lawfully and properly traversing the public roadway at the said location" (id.).
The City appeared and filed Verified Answers to the Complaint on or about April 27, 2014 (Epstein aff at ¶ 4). It is averred that bills of particulars were served by plaintiff and discovery ensued, inclusive of exchange of documents and information. Further, Gray was deposed by counsel for defendants on December 18, 2015 and defendants' depositions were held on the following dates: 1/25/2016; 10/5/2016; 12/2/2016; 10/12/2017; 12/6/2017; 2/15/2018; 5/9/2018; and 8/24/18 (Epstein aff at ¶ 4).
None of the deposition transcripts, nor defendants' pleadings have been uploaded to NYSCEF. This oversight may be a clerical error, as there is no dispute that this matter was ripe for trial as issue was joined and all discovery was completed.
According to the Law Firm, settlement of this matter was strongly encouraged because "[a]fter the completion of defendants' depositions, [Epstein] sent the repair records to an engineer whom [the Law Firm] retained with respect to the issue of the propriety of the repairs made to the public roadway abutting the catch basin. The expert was of the opinion that the repairs utilized improper materials and failed to build an appropriate foundation to support the repairs made on the surface, predisposing the repair to failure. There were other difficult legal issues with this position as well as the claims against the [NYCTA] which rendered the case one in which settlement should be strongly considered." (Epstein aff at ¶ 5)
Prior to filing a Note of Issue, the Law Firm, on behalf of its client Gray, requested a settlement conference with the court. On March 15, 2019, all parties appeared in court for the settlement conference and after many hours of negotiations, the court facilitated the parties' settlement agreement (Epstein aff at ¶ 6). All parties agreed to settle this matter in the amount of $80,000.00 (the Settlement Amount). The terms of the settlement agreement and Gray's allocution was made in open court with by a court reporter (Ct tr) (Doc No. 38). The pertinent, "on the record" discussions were, as follows:
"THE COURT: Appearing on behalf of the plaintiff Marjorie Gray is Steven A. Epstein of the Law Office of Steven A. Epstein PLLC. On behalf of the Transit Authority we have Peter Chang and Sherri Ehrlich of Lawrence Heisler's office. On behalf of the City of New York we have Ankit Kapoor, an Assistant Corporation Counsel of the Office of Zachary Carter.
Now, we've reached a settlement in this matter for a total sum of $80,000, is that correct, Mr. Epstein?
MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The Transit Authority is going to pay $52,500, correct?
MS. EHRLICH: Yes.
MR. CHANG: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: The City of New York is going to pay $27,500, correct?
MR. KAPOOR: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Epstein, would you like to allocute your client?
MR. EPSTEIN: Sure.
THE COURT: I'm not going to ask you to stand up. Raise your right hand. You don't have to stand, just raise your right hand.
THE COURT CLERK: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth in all matters before this Court?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT CLERK: State your name and address.
THE WITNESS: Marjorie Gray, 430 East 20th 11 Street New York, New York 10009.
THE COURT: Thank you. You could put your hand down. You can face your attorney so you hear him.
MR. EPSTEIN: Okay. Good afternoon, Ms. Gray. As Her Honor has already said, the case has been settled for the sum of $80,000. Of that sum 52,500 is payable by the New York City Transit Authority, 27,500 is payable by the City of New York. All right, do you understand that once the case is settled and you will be required to execute certain documents for both of the defendants in order to get the proceeds of the settlement, that will be the end of the case against either defendant. You will have no further rights against either the City, the Transit Authority or any of the other defendants who have been sued in this case with regard to an accident which you were involved in on August 5, 2012, do you understand that?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: I want to further tell you that out of the sum of $80,000 I want to make certain that you understand that you will be responsible for the following: The legal fees and disbursements to my firm pursuant to our retainer agreement, do you understand that?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: You will also be responsible, the only lien that I am aware of is a lien which has been asserted by Optum, a subrogation carrier on behalf of United Healthcare who is the third-party administrator of your Medicare. They paid certain bills, particularly at Beth Israel Hospital, related to your care. I will discuss with them, I am going to attempt to negotiate with them to reduce their lien, given the amount of the settlement and given the amount of the fees and
disbursements attributed to that. I will try to get that reduced. But you are responsible to satisfy their lien out of the proceeds of the settlement, do you understand that?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: Do you agree with that?
THE WITNESS: Yes." (Ct tr at 2:8 - 4:25)
"MR. EPSTEIN: Are you in agreement, do you understand all of the terms of the settlement?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. EPSTEIN: Are you in agreement with them?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand that you cannot come back to Court and seek additional money from either the Transit or the City in connection with the injuries you sustained?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Are you satisfied with your attorney's services?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Ma'am, is anyone forcing you to take this settlement?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Are you on any medications --
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: -- that could be impairing your judgment today?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Are you suffering from any conditions that could be impairing your judgment today?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Then that's sufficient. Thank you. Very best of luck to you, Ma'am.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Judge." (Ct tr at 5:21-6:19).
(Collectively, the Stipulation on the Record).
Contemporaneously with the Stipulation on the Record, the parties signed a Stipulation of Settlement (Doc No. 34) containing the exact same terms as agreed upon in open court on March 15, 2019. The Law Firm asserts that after the allocution on the record, Gray was advised that in order to receive the settlement amount proceeds, documents would need to be executed which Epstein agreed to bring directly to Gray to facilitate its execution. The Law Firm also asserts that it took steps to "negotiate a reduction of the Medicare lien with the representative of Optum, the subrogation representative of United Healthcare" which yielded a successful reduction of the lien to $8,266.82 from its original lien sum amount of $12,802.03 (Epstein aff at ¶¶ 9 and 18) (see also Lien Letter dated June 18, 2018, Doc No. 41; and Final Lien Letter dated March 26, 2019, Doc No. 42). Epstein further states that he contacted the City's "settlement department with respect to certain document requirements of the City by reason of the death of the plaintiff's prior attorney, Mr. Statfeld" (Epstein aff at ¶ 9).
Once all the settlement documents were ready for signature, Epstein began to experience communication "issues" with Gray (Epstein aff at ¶9) and requested a court conference. On June 11, 2019, the parties appeared for a court scheduled conference and Gray was "agreeable to executing the settlement papers" (id.). When Gray requested additional information about the payout amounts, Epstein avers that he provided Gray with those details in a later phone conversation (id.), but since then Epstein has been unable to reach Gray in order to have all the necessary documents executed to bring this matter to its proper conclusion (Epstein aff at ¶s 9, 10 and 12).
On or about July 24, 2020, the Law Firm presented the court with the herein Order to Show Cause (OSC) seeking to enforce the Stipulation on the Record. The OSC was signed by the court on August 11, 2020 and Gray was directed to "show cause" before the court at 80 Centre Street, New York, New York or by video conference as the court may direct on September 11, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., on why the Law Firm's herein application should not be made and entered confirming the Stipulation on the Record and marking this matter "settled" as agreed by the parties. The court also directed that opposition papers be served by mail, or e-filed, by September 4, 2020. The Law Firm was to serve all parties with a copy of the OSC, including plaintiff Gray, by August 14, 2020.
ARGUMENTS
The Law Firm contends that its application to enforce the Stipulation on the Record must be granted because: (1) the Law Firm is unable to communicate with Gray despite multiple attempts to do so by phone and mail; (2) the Law Firm cannot explain the lack of communication from its client; (3) pursuant to CPLR 2104, agreements made in open court, as was the case here, are binding, valid and enforceable; and (4) court intervention is necessary in order to finalize the usual and customary documents required so as to be in compliance with the settlement agreement placed on the record and agreed to by all parties, including Gray, and bring this matter to its agreed upon conclusion.
Proof of Service of the OSC was filed on August 12, 2020 (Doc No. 45). All the defendants were served with the OSC. Gray was served with a copy of the OSC, on August 12, 2020, via Federal Express Overnight Mail at Gray's last known address at 430 East 20th Street, Apt. 3G New York, New York 10009-8203.
The instant OSC was submitted to the court, without any opposition papers.
DISCUSSION
An "open court" settlement agreement may be enforced by the court if the requisite formality "necessary to accord the oral agreement binding effect" under CPLR 2104, is met (see Grant v Almonte, 168 AD3d 428, 428 [1st Dept 2019]). CPLR 2104, entitled Stipulations states, as follows:
"An agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one made between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered. With respect to stipulations of settlement and notwithstanding the form of the stipulation of settlement, the terms of such stipulation shall be filed by the defendant with the county clerk."
Enforcing a settlement agreement is warranted where the "matter was settled in open court, following negotiations in the trial-ready part with the assistance of the presiding judge, the part notified the County Clerk, who marked the matter" settled and where plaintiff did "not dispute terms of settlement or that it was memorialized by the court" (Harrison v NYU Downtown Hosp., 117 AD3d 479, 479 [1st Dept 2014]). Here, this court assisted with the settlement negotiations as well as facilitated the entry of the settlement agreement on the record to ensure that all parties understood and accepted the settlement terms.
Stipulations made in "open court" need not be in writing or even signed by the attorneys for the parties to the litigation (see Caroli v Allstate Ins. Co., 100 AD3d 941, 943, [2d Dept 2012) as the required documentation is the court transcript that memorialized the terms of the parties' agreement (see Diarassouba v Urban, 71 AD3d 51, 55 (2d Dept 2009). Such "open court" stipulations "are strictly enforced and not lightly cast aside" (see Allison v Allison, 41 AD3d 519, 520 [2d Dept 2007]. In any event, none of the parties to this litigation are seeking to set aside the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.
The Stipulation on the Record memorialized the parties' settlement agreement. There was a lengthy allocution on the record wherein Gray was asked, multiple times, if the terms of the agreement were understood and if Gray accepted the terms of the stipulation as stated by Epstein on the record (Ct tr at 3:14-25; 4:1-25; 5: 21-25; 6: 1-19). Each time, Gray affirmed that the terms were understood and accepted. On the record, the parties specified and outlined the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, including the time frame for disbursements of the Settlement Amount (Ct tr at 5:1-19). After the Stipulation on the Record was made, the court's file of this matter was marked "disposed" and settled.
Gray was advised by the court that the City would provide certain documents requiring Gray's signature and once signed, the documents would have to be returned to the City in order for the settlement funds to be disbursed and paid to Gray (id.). On the record, Gray affirmed that she understood the necessity of the execution of closing documents (Ct tr at 5:12-25). The court transcript of the proceeding demonstrates that the material terms of the agreement were stated and agreed upon as follows: (a) "the case has been settled for the sum of $80,000. Of that sum [$]52,500 is payable by the New York City Transit Authority, [$]27,500 is payable by the City of New York" (Ct tr at 3:14-25; 4:1-3); (b) that Gray was "responsible to satisfy [Optum's] lien out of the proceeds of the settlement" (Ct tr at 4:10-23); (c) that "out of the sum of $80,000" Gray was responsible to pay "legal fees and disbursements" to the Law Firm pursuant to the Retainer Agreement (Ct tr at 4:4-9).
Contemporaneously with Stipulation on the Record on March 15, 2019, the parties executed a written Stipulation of Settlement (Doc No. 34). Again, Gray agreed to its terms when the Law Firm signed, in open court, this three-page Stipulation of Settlement on Gray's behalf. The written the stipulation signed by Gray's attorney and witnessed by Gray without objection is binding "under general contract principles" (Matter of Nobile v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 166 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2018]). The Stipulation of Settlement is also an enforceable contract and absent a showing of sufficient cause such as "fraud, collusion, mistake or accident" to invalidate the contract, Gray cannot be relieved "from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation" (90th St. Corp. v 203 W. 90th St. Retail, LLC., 187 AD3d 497, 498 [1st Dept 2020], quoting Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). Even under circumstances where a litigant had settler's remorse or sought to set aside a consent to a stipulation because of an "afterthought" or a "change of mind," the settlement extensively negotiated and accepted in open court and further memorialized in writing will not be cast aside "absent a showing of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or any other good cause" (Barclay v Citibank, N.A., 136 AD3d 551, 551 [1st Dept 2016]). There has been no such showing hear.
Gray's failure to object to the Stipulation of Settlement and the fact that Gray authorized the Law Firm to execute the document on her behalf when she entered into a Retainer Agreement with the Law Firm, further solidifies Gray's acceptance of the terms of the parties' Stipulation on the Record (Pruss v Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc., 180 AD3d 163 [1st Dept 2020]). Not only did the Law Firm have authority to enter into settlement negotiations on behalf of Gray, but Gray accepted the terms of the settlement agreement extensively negotiated in court as evidenced by the court transcript. In other words, there was actual authority by the Law Firm's client, Gray, to settle this personal injury action on her behalf.
Moreover, no additional terms or modifications to the parties' "open court" settlement agreement were made. In fact, the written Stipulation of Settlement mirrors the exact terms of the settlement agreement put on the record. Based upon the written Stipulation of Settlement, together with the memorialization of the terms of the settlement in "open court," there is no reason to believe that this matter has not settled. To the contrary, there is substantial "evidence" to indicate otherwise and Gray "implicitly ratified the settlement by making no formal objection" to the Stipulation of Settlement (Matter of Silicone Breast Implant Litig., 306 AD2d 82, 84-85 [1st Dept 2003]). The terms of the parties' settlement agreement were clearly confirmed and accepted by all parties to this litigation. It is again noted that there is no basis upon which to invalidate this extensively negotiated settlement agreement as there was no showing of "fraud, overreaching, mistake or duress" (see Klauer v Abeliovich, 120 AD3d 1114, 1115 [1st Dept 2014], citing Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). Lastly, Gray has not challenged the validity and enforceability of the terms of the Retainer Agreement, nor has Gray disputed the Legal Fees due and owing to the Law Firm, or the negotiated reduced lien amount due to Optum.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the application (Motion Seq. 001) by the Law Office of Steven A. Epstein, PLLC, the attorney of record for plaintiff Marjorie Gray, for an order enforcing the parties' Stipulation of Settlement made in open court on March 15, 2019, is granted in its entirety, and without opposition; and it is further
ORDERED the settlement of this action made and placed on the record in open Court on March 15, 2019, is confirmed; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants pay the proceeds of the settlement of this action, to wit: EIGHTY THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($80,000.00) DOLLARS, directly to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County to be deposited into the appropriate account, said sum to be paid by defendants as follows: (a) defendant NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY to pay the total sum of FIFTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND 00/100 ($52,500.00) DOLLARS; and (b) defendant CITY OF NEW YORK to pay the total sum of TWENTYSEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND 00/100 ($27,500.00) DOLLARS; and it is further
ORDERED that the legal fees and disbursements payable to the LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, PLLC be fixed and allowed, pursuant to the Retainer Agreement between the plaintiff and said firm, in the sum of TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO AND 83/100 ($2,352.83) DOLLARS for reimbursement of disbursements and the sum of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND EIOHT HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO AND 39/100 ($25,882.39) DOLLARS for legal fees for a total to the LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, PLLC of TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE AND 22/100 ($28,235.22) DOLLARS; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County shall pay the aforesaid legal fees and disbursements to the LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, PLLC from the money deposited with Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County by the defendants within 14 days of the receipt thereof; and it is further
ORDERED that the balance remaining after deduction and payment of the disbursements and legal fee to the LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, PLLC, to wit the sum of FIFTY-ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR AND 78/100 ($51,764.78) DOLLARS, shall continue to be held by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County subject to the further Order of this Court directing the payment of the plaintiff s Medicare lien in the reduced amount of EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX AND 82/100 ($8,266.82) DOLLARS to Optum on behalf of United Health Care; and it is further
ORDERED that the balance remaining following the payment of the attorney's fees, disbursements and Medicare lien to Optum, to wit, the sum of FORTY-THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NIN.ETY-SEVEN AND 96/100 ($43,497.96) DOLLAR.S shall continue to be held by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County pending further Order of this Court directing payment of said sum to the plaintiff; and it is further
ORDERED that STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, Esq., on behalf of the LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, PLLC, shall be permitted and directed to execute such Stipulations of Discontinuance and additional settlement documents required by defendants as the Court may direct which do not require the plaintiff's signature to process the said settlement and to obtain the aforesaid settlement proceeds from the defendants, together with such other and further relief as to this Court seems just and proper under the circumstances; and it is further
ORDERED that STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, Esq., on behalf of the LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, PLLC comply with any further directives, if any, by the Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County that may be necessary to comply with the court's order herein.
ORDERED that STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, Esq., on behalf of the LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. EPSTEIN, PLLC shall serve plaintiff and defendants with a copy of this order with notice of entry within 15 days of the date of this order. DATED: February 22, 2021
ENTER:
/s/ _________
LISA ANN SOKOLOFF, J.S.C.