Court Opinion

ID: 9871827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 20:44:16.328361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:22.342638
License: Public Domain

Moskowitz, J.
(concurring). I believe that the majority goes much further than is necessary to determine this appeal, purporting to set forth a new seven-part test to enhance the one established in Matter of Colt Indus. Shareholder Litig. (155 AD2d 154, 160 [1st Dept 1990], mod on other grounds 77 NY2d 185 [1991]). But no party to this appeal took issue with the existing Colt test, and therefore, neither party has had a chance to address this purported new standard. And even putting aside the fact that neither party has briefed the matter, we need not adopt a new standard to determine the issues before us, as the trial court considered only one of the five existing Colt factors before declining to approve the settlement (RSB Bedford Assoc., LLC v Ricky’s Williamsburg, Inc., 91 AD3d 16, 22 [1st Dept 2011] [unnecessary to reach issue that is irrevelant under the contracts at issue in the action]).
As we have held, a court should approve the proposed settlement of a class action under CPLR 908 where the settlement is “fair, adequate and in the best interests of the class” (Rosenfeld v Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 237 AD2d 199, 199 [1st Dept 1997], appeal dismissed 90 NY2d 888 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 811 [1997]). CPLR 908 itself is silent on the factors to be considered in approving a class action settlement. As the majority notes, however, in reviewing a proposed class action settlement to determine whether it is in the class members’ best interests, a court should consider “[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” (Colt, 155 AD2d at 160). To these already-existing factors, the majority proposes adding two new *167ones: “whether the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the putative settlement class as a whole, and whether the settlement is in the best interest of the corporation” (majority op at 158).
As I have noted above, however, no party to this appeal has argued that the existing five-factor Colt test is inadequate to the task of evaluating a class action settlement. For one thing, no party maintains on appeal that a court considering approval of a proposed class action settlement should consider whether the settlement is in the corporation’s best interests. In my view, this Court should not add a new factor to a long-established test without giving the parties the opportunity to brief the matter (see e.g. Pullman v Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060, 1062 n [2016, Fahey, J., concurring] [noting that Court declines to address a matter that the parties did not brief]; see also Matter of Rossi v New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 127 AD3d 463, 478 [1st Dept 2015, Tom, J., dissenting in part]).
Further, plaintiff argues on her appeal not that the trial court should have considered factors in addition to the five set forth in Colt, but that the trial court “focused solely on the benefits conferred on the settlement class as a whole.” But in her opening brief, plaintiff appears to conflate the factors in Colt with the overarching requirement, set forth in Rosenfeld, that the settlement be “fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class.” Not only is this requirement not a factor in the Colt test, but it is already subsumed in the relevant case law such as Rosenfeld (see also Klein v Robert’s Am. Gourmet Food, Inc., 28 AD3d 63, 73 [2d Dept 2006]).*
Thus, I part ways with the majority on its conclusion that we should analyze the proposed class settlement under a new seven-factor test. Rather, I believe that we should approve the proposed class settlement under the rubric of the existing five-factor Colt test, as the proposed settlement under that test is fair, adequate, and in the class members’ best interest (see Rosenfeld, 237 AD2d at 199). I do agree with the majority, however, that we should remand the matter to the trial court for determination of the proper attorneys’ fees.
Andrias, J.R, and Saxe, JJ., concur with Kahn, J.; Moskow-itz, J., concurs in a separate opinion.
*168Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 22, 2014, reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the motion granted, the proposed settlement approved, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 3, 2015, dismissed, without costs.

 Plaintiff appears to concede in her reply brief that the five factors relevant to deciding the propriety of a proposed class action settlement are “[i] the likelihood of success, [ii] the extent of support from the parties, [iii] the judgment of counsel, [iv] the presence of bargaining in good faith, and [v] the nature of the issues of law and fact.”