Motion | Filed: August 03, 2026
| Entered: August 03, 2026
N.B. et al v. City of New York et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Report and Recommendations
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 35 MOTION for Approval of Infant Compromise. Plaintiff N.B., infant, by his father and natural guardian, Kareen Brown ("Plaintiff"), commenced this action against Defendants The City of New York (the "City") and Police Officers John and Jane Does # 1-4 in their individual and official capacities (the "Doe Officers" and, collectively with the City, "Defendants"). See ECF No. 1 . Plaintiff alleged claims (1) for violation of Plaintiff's right to be free from an unreasonable seizure and to be free from deprivation of liberty pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, respectively, against Defendants; (2) for false arrest and false imprisonment of Plaintiff against Defendants; (3) for negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision against the City; and (4) for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendants. See id.
Plaintiff and the City reached a settlement of Plaintiff's claims. See ECF No. 34 . Plaintiff and the City agreed to resolve Plaintiff's claims for $38,000.00, see ECF No. 35-4 at 1, consisting of $12,540.00 in attorneys' fees, $405.00 in costs and $25,055.00 to be paid to Plaintiff, see id. at 2. Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for approval of the infant compromise. See ECF No. 35 . The Court held a hearing during which counsel and Plaintiff's parent provided supplemental information. See ECF No. 38 , Tr. 2:1 11:11. For the reasons set forth in this report and recommendation, the Court respectfully recommends that the motion be granted, and that the settlement be approved in accordance with the proposed order as Exhibit A to this report and recommendation.
Any written objections to this report and recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days of service. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to the District Judge assigned to this action prior to the expiration of the fourteen-day period for filing objections. Failure to file objections within fourteen days will preclude further review of this report and recommendation by both the District Court and the Court of Appeals. See Miller v. Brightstar Asia, Ltd., 43 F.4th 112, 120 (2d Cir. 2022). If the parties wish to shorten the objection time, they may inform the District Judge.
Ordered by Chief Mag. Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 8/3/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (NTH)