United States District Court, E.D. New York
KRISTIN MARINUCCI VITUCCI, individually and as parent and natural guardian of
DENIS R. HURLEY, District Judge.
On August 28, 2012, Kristin Marinucci Vitucci ("Vitucci"), individually and as parent and natural guardian of "V.",  an infant under the age of 14 years, and V., an infant under the age of 14 years, by her mother and natural guardian, Vitucci (collectively, "plaintiffs"), commenced this action against Winthrop University Hospital, Winthrop-University Hospital, Winthrop-University Hospital Association, Winthrop University Hospital Children's Medical Center, Winthrop-University Hospital Services Corp., Winthrop South Nassau University Health System, Inc., New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc., and Long Island Health Network (collectively, "defendants"), alleging violations of the American with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the New York State Human Rights Law, and 10 NYCRR § 405.7(a)(7). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants discriminated against them on the bases of Vitucci's deafness and associated speech limitation.
While this action was pending, and after defendants had appeared by their attorneys, and document requests and interrogatories had been served and answered by both parties, the parties participated in a full day mediation session on August 8, 2013, during which session the parties reached a settlement. It was agreed that defendants would pay plaintiffs the sum of $50, 000, in full satisfaction of plaintiffs' claims, with Vitucci receiving 75% of the gross proceeds of the settlement, and V. receiving 25% of the gross proceeds. However, because V. is an infant, plaintiffs applied to the Court for an infant compromise order.
On August 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown issued a Report and Recommendation, which recommended that plaintiffs' motion for approval of the proposed infant compromise be granted. More than fourteen days have elapsed since service of the Report and Recommendation, and no party has filed an objection. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the August 18, 2014 Report and Recommendation for clear error, and, finding none, adopts the August 18, 2014 Report and ...