On July 21, 2014, the parties filed a written stipulation of settlement with Supreme Court. On October 6, 2014, the motion court issued a scheduling order which (1) preliminarily certified this action as a class action, (2) preliminarily approved the settlement and (3) scheduled a hearing to determine whether the settlement should receive the final approval of the court as being "fair, adequate and in the best interests of the class" (Rosenfeld v. Bear Stearns & Co., 237 A.D.2d 199, 199, 655 N.Y.S.2d 473 [1st Dept.1997], lv. dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 888, 661 N.Y.S.2d 832, 684 N.E.2d 282 [1997]lv. denied90 N.Y.2d 811, 666 N.Y.S.2d 100, 688 N.E.2d 1382 [1997] ). "Consistent with federal practice (cf. [Fed. Rules. Civ. Pro rule] 23 [e][1][c] ), New York courts customarily conduct a fairness hearing, on notice, as part of the [settlement] approval process."

Settlement In deciding whether any proposed settlement is appropriate, the court considers whether the settlement was "fair, adequate and in the best interests of the class. . . ." (Rosenfeld v Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 237 AD2d 199, 199 [1st Dept 19971. appeal dismissed 90 NY2d 888, lv denied 90 NY2d 81; Klein v. Robert's American Gourmet Food, Inc., 28 AD3d 63, 70 [2d Dept 2006].) Upon review of the record in this matter, the court holds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate and in the best interests of the class.

In order to approve the settlement of a class action, a court must find that the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class. ( Rosenfeld v Bear Stearns Co., Inc., 237 AD2d 199, 199 [1st Dept 1997]; Brody v Catell, 2007 WL 1865080 [Sup Ct Kings County]). Although CPLR 908 does not prescribe specific guidelines for a court to follow in determining the merits of a proposed class action settlement, the case law in this state suggests that the court should consider the following factors: (1) the likelihood of success; (2) the extent of support from the parties; (3) the judgment of counsel; (4) the presence of bargaining in good faith and (5) the nature of the issues of law and fact.

Hence, court approval is determined by the fairness of the settlement, its adequacy, its reasonableness and the best interests of the class members. Klein, id. at 73, 808 N.Y.S.2d 766; Rosenfeld v. Bear Stearns & Co., 237 A.D.2d 199, 655 N.Y.S.2d 473 (1st Dept.), lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 811, 666 N.Y.S.2d 100, 688 N.E.2d 1382 (1997). See Joel A. v. Giuliani, 218 F.3d 132, 138 (2d Cir. 2000); Grunin v. International House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114, 123 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 423 U.S. 864, 96 S.Ct. 124, 46 L.Ed.2d 93 (1975) (settlement should be fair, reasonable and adequate).

Decided October 23, 1997 Appeal from 1st Dept: 237 A.D.2d 199 Denied.

Decided July 1, 1997 Appeal from 1st Dept: 237 A.D.2d 199 APPEALS ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS

There is no legal or constitutional principle that mandates the use of the opt-in method. In fact, we have regularly approved class action settlements which incorporate an opt-out method under circumstances similar to those here ( see Rosenfeld v. Bear Stearns Co., 237 AD2d 199, appeal dismissed 90 NY2d 888, lv denied 90 NY2d 811; Matter of Colt Indus. Shareholder Litig., 155 AD2d 154, 160, mod on other grounds 77 NY2d 185). Furthermore, the rules of the Commercial Division of Supreme Court, New York County, which form the sole basis of the court's determination, are not dispositive on the fairness of the opt-out method. Rather, although the rules prefer the opt-in method, such rules are just general guidelines, and exceptions are made in appropriate cases.

Plaintiff seeks approval of her proposed settlement agreement pursuant to CPLR 908, which states the following, as relevant here: "[a] class action shall not be . . . discontinued or compromised without the approval of the court." In determining whether approval is appropriate, the court looks to whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members. (Gordon v Verizon Communications, Inc., 148 A.D.3d 146, 151 [1st Dept 2017]; Rosenfeld v Bear Stearns & Co., 237 A.D.2d 199, 199 [1st Dept 1997], Iv dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 888, Iv denied 90 N.Y.2d 811).

SETTLEMENT In order to approve the settlement of a class action, a court must find that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class (Rosenfeld v Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 237 AD2d 199, 199 [1st Dept 1997]; Wainbergar v Kandrick, 698 F2d 61 73 [2d Circ 1982]). The following factors are relevant to the court's determination: (a) the likelihood that plaintiff would succeed on the merits or an assessment of the litigation risks; (b) the extent of support from the parties; (c) the judgment of counsel; (d) the presence of good faith bargaining; and (e) the complexity and nature of the legal and factual issues (Cox v Microsoft Corp., 2006 WL 6554176 [Sup Ct, NY Co 2006]).

In determining whether approval is appropriate, the court looks to whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members. (Gordon v Verizon Communications, Inc., 148 AD3d 146, 151 [1st Dept 2017]; Rosenfeld v Bear Stearns & Co., 237 AD2d 199, 199 [1st Dept 1997], lv dismissed 90 NY2d 888, lv denied 90 NY2d 811).