WHITE PLAINS, NY (January 8, 2026) — The wrongful death lawsuit stemming from the 2023 fatal police shooting of Jarrel Raymond Garris remains unresolved amid a dispute over a mediated settlement agreement.
Court filings by Raymond Fowler, Garris’s father and the court-appointed administrator of his estate, and William O. Wagstaff III, the attorney hired to represent the estate highlights rare tensions among plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorneys in a high-profile police shooting case.
Whether the allegations by Fowler and/or Wagstaff are true or not — the court will decide in coming months — one thing appears certain: the case appears to be a long way from being settled. As of early 2026, the court has not signed off on a proposed order to enforce a mediated settlement agreement, leaving the resolution of the litigation uncertain amid an intra-family conflict.
On December 23, 2025, a Westchester County Supreme Court judge stayed proceedings for 30 days in the wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Jarrel Garris — the 37-year-old Black man fatally shot by a White New Rochelle police detective in 2023 — to allow plaintiffs time to secure new counsel. In a December 23 court notice, the judge rejected two filings for unpaid fees and scheduled a mandatory in-person appearance for January 29 at 9:30 a.m., with no adjournments permitted.
Fowler said he will hire an attorney. His incoming counsel must file a notice of appearance by that date and any motions related to an October 28, 2025 decision by February 20,, 2026, while Wagstaff must clarify continued representation.
The lawsuit, stemming from the shooting over alleged fruit theft that state investigations deemed justified, had been set for a potential $300,000 settlement earlier in 2025.
Fowler, who has been representing himself pro se since October 14, 2025, has filed a motion opposing enforcement of the settlement. In court filings, Fowler has alleged that attorney William O. Wagstaff III had a conflict of interest by representing multiple parties without proper consent, lacked authority to bind the estate after Fowler terminated him, and engaged in improper conduct related to fees and documents.
We reached out to Wagstaff who declined comment citing ethical considerations in responding to a former client but he has addressed the allegations in publicly available court documents.
Case Background
Garris, 37, died on July 10, 2023, a week after being shot by New Rochelle Police Detective Steven Conn during an encounter over alleged petty larceny at a grocery store. Investigations by the New York Attorney General’s Office (September 2024) and the New Rochelle Police Department (January 2025) concluded that Conn’s use of deadly force was justified, citing body camera footage showing Garris reaching for an officer’s gun during a struggle.
The civil lawsuit, filed in Westchester County Supreme Court in October 2024 (Estate of Jarrel Garris, Raymond Fowler, and Janet Garris v. City of New Rochelle and Det. Steven Conn), alleges excessive force and negligence. The City of New Rochelle approved a $250,000 contribution toward a $300,000 settlement in April 2025 with the balance paid by the city’s insurance.
Settlement Dispute
A mediation ending on March 27, 2025, resulted in a Post-Mediation Agreement for a global settlement, according to exhibits filed with the court by the city’s attorney, Steven C. Stern of Sokloff Stern LLP.
• $200,000 to Garris’s minor son (the estate’s sole heir)
• $50,000 each to parents Raymond Fowler and Janet Garris for individual loss-of-support claims
Fowler says Stern put forward a different global settlement in a hearing on September 22, 2025 which added $50,000 in attorney fees paid directly to Wagstaff’s firm by the city/insurer
• $200,000 to Garris’s minor son (the estate’s sole heir)
• $50,000 each to parents Raymond Fowler and Janet Garris for individual loss-of-support claims
• $50,000 in attorney fees paid directly to Wagstaff’s firm by the city/insurer
Stern filed an Affirmation with the court on October 8, 2025 stating the global settlement was $300,000 but listing $350,000 in settlement amounts including $50,000 in attorney fees paid directly to Wagstaff’s firm by the city/insurer.
Stern filed another Affirmation with the court on October 28, 2025 recanting the different global settlement amounts saying the $300,000 settlement should have read as follows:
• $200,000 Estate of Jarrell Garris and “JP” who, upon information and belief, is the sole distribute of the estate;
• $50,000 to Raymond Fowler; and
• $50,000 to Janet Garris.
Stern wrote, “as noted in the Post Mediation Agreement, and stated in paragraphs 11 and 13 of my Affirmation, the above amounts were ‘inclusive of all costs, disbursements, liens, claims and attorney fees”. Adding, “Mr. Wagstaff agrees and acknowledges in paragraph 22 of his Supplemental Affirmation that the total amount of the settlement is “$300,000 ($200,000 for the Estate and $50,000 to each parent-plaintiff).”
“I apologize for any confusion that may have been caused by this error, “ said Stern.
Fowler is particularly concerned with Stern saying $50,000 would be going from the city/insurer to Wagstaff, in addition to attorney fees at approximately 33⅓% ($99,900 plus disbursements). Fowler does not believe it was an error and the $50,000 in question is cited as one of the primary reasons he says he fired Wagstaff as attorney for the Garris estate.
In a supplemental affirmation filed October 27, 2025, in Westchester County Supreme Court, Wagstaff accused Fowler of making false statements to the court in an effort to derail a mediated settlement. Wagstaff invoked his ethical obligations under New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct to correct what he described as inaccurate assertions by Fowler during an October 14 court conference. Wagstaff, citing personal knowledge and supporting exhibits including emails, hearing transcripts, and a signed post-mediation agreement, maintained that Fowler was fully aware of his individual claim, actively participated in a March 2025 mediation where he consented to a $300,000 settlement ($200,000 to the estate and $50,000 each to the parents), and received consistent communication from the firm. The attorney emphasized that the agreement, reached before a neutral mediator, was “final and binding,” and that Fowler’s later refusal to sign formal releases did not invalidate it. Wagstaff stated there was no basis to oppose enforcement of the settlement, offering to testify if needed, as the dispute threatened the interests of the estate and co-plaintiff Janet Garris.
On November 20, 2025, Wagstaff argued Fowler’s pro se motions to stay enforcement were procedurally flawed, barred by prior rulings, and improper since estates with minor beneficiaries cannot be represented without counsel.
Wagstaff went on to highlight discrepancies in Fowler’s claimed $12,000 funeral expenses, revealing through direct inquiry that actual costs were under $5,000, partly covered by crowdfunding and a personal contribution from Wagstaff himself; he suggested this could indicate potential fraud and urged the judge to consider removing Fowler as administrator to protect funds intended for Garris’ minor son, the sole beneficiary.
There is an additional matter I believe I am obligated to raise pursuant to Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In his sworn petition for Letters of Administration, Mr. Fowler represented that he incurred $12,000 in funeral expenses (Exhibit 1). Throughout the case, he has repeatedly asserted a right to reimbursement in that amount from the Estate. In recent communications, he again stated that he would not waive those funeral expenses. These assertions continued even after the Court approved the settlement, and for that reason, I renewed my prior requests that he provide receipts or documentation of those expenditures. Despite several such requests, Mr. Fowler did not provide any documentation. His next communication after my November 5th inquiry was an email purporting to terminate my representation. As you may have noticed, reimbursement to Mr. Fowler for his out-of-pocket funeral expenses, was incorporated in the previous proposed Order I had prepared. Because documentation was still necessary in light of the settlement’s imminent enforcement and because Mr. Fowler refused to provide it, I contacted Legall Funeral Home directly. The invoice provided to me, marked “Paid in Full,” reflects total charges of $4,955 (Exhibit 2). I also learned that the family raised approximately $4,000 on GoFundMe (Exhibit 3). At the time of the decedent’s funeral, Mr. Fowler reported a shortfall of $1,500, which I personally contributed because the funeral home refused to release the decedent’s body in time for the funeral unless the balance was paid. These figures cannot be reconciled with the $12,000 sworn representation Mr. Fowler made in his petition to the Surrogate’s Court. The discrepancy raises substantial concerns regarding the accuracy of his sworn filings. If those concerns are substantiated, they may evince a fraud upon the Court and a potential attempt to divert funds intended for the decedent’s infant son.
Given these circumstances, and given the Court’s ongoing jurisdiction under EPTL § 5-4.6 to supervise the distribution of wrongful-death proceeds, I respectfully submit that the Court should consider whether Mr. Fowler’s continued service as Administrator is appropriate under SCPA §§ 711 and 719. I do not know whether you will find it comfortable to continue with Mr. Fowler as the Estate fiduciary, as he attempts to pay himself for unidentified expenses from funds intended for his grandson. Should the Court determine that removal is warranted, what minor tasks I see remaining – receiving settlement funds, dispensing them in accordance with the Order you will be issuing, and e-filing confirmation of completion – I am happy to perform, consistent with the settlement terms already approved on October 28th
During an October 28, 2025, hearing, Justice Lewis J. Lubell orally enforced the settlement and approved the revised allocation but directed submission of a written order. No final signed order has been issued as of January 7, 2026, with funds held in escrow.
Fowler filed a pro se motion (NYSCEF Doc. No. 62) on December 18, 2025, challenging enforcement, arguing he never consented to the full terms, rejected certain provisions (e.g., barring future personal claims, excluding certain expenses), and formally terminated Wagstaff on October 14, 2025. He further alleges dual representation without waivers, improper direct fee payments potentially inflating total compensation, unauthorized post-termination actions, and issues with document notarization.
Wagstaff, who Fowler says now represents only Janet Garris (the mother), continues to urge issuance of the proposed order, per court records.
An earlier attempt by Wagstaff to approve a portion of the settlement in Surrogate’s Court to the mother of Jerrel Garris’s minor son was dismissed in August 2025 due to her lack of standing.
Current Status
The case remains open and contested with distribution of funds contingent on resolution of Fowler’s objections.
We reached out to William O. Wagstaff III to get his response to specific allegations Mr. Fowler has made against him, primarily in NYSCEF Doc. No. 62. Wagstaff said ethics considerations prevented him from going on the record about a former client.
Fowler’s allegations against Wagstaff include:
- Wagstaff engaged in dual or multiple representation by representing Tyisha Pompey (guardian of the minor child), Janet Garris, and potentially other parties in the matter over a two-year period (July 2023 to July 2025) without obtaining Fowler’s informed consent or a signed waiver of conflict, as required under New York rules of professional conduct.
- Wagstaff admitted during a recorded phone conversation in July 2025 to the dual representation, stated that he “should have been loyal” to Fowler due to shared local ties, and apologized for the conflict.
- Wagstaff lacked authority to bind the estate to the full settlement agreement, as Fowler never personally consented to or signed a global settlement document, rejected a proposed document around May 29, 2025 (due to provisions barring future personal claims and excluding coverage for medical expenses, attorney fees, and liens), withdrew any prior estate-related consent in August 2025, and formally terminated Wagstaff as counsel on October 14, 2025 (both on the record in court and via written notice).
- Wagstaff continued to take actions related to the estate after termination (including filings and representations), which Fowler contends were unauthorized.
- Wagstaff benefited from an improper fee structure in the original March 27, 2025, Post-Mediation Agreement, including a $50,000 attorney fee paid directly by the City of New Rochelle/insurer to the Law Offices of William O. Wagstaff III (bypassing the estate), in addition to a contingency fee of one-third of the $300,000 beneficiary share (approximately $100,000), potentially resulting in total compensation of $150,000.
- Wagstaff failed to disclose or properly address the direct $50,000 fee payment arrangement, which was referenced on the record by the city’s attorney during a September 22, 2025, hearing but not denied at the time (leading to later recantation in October).
- Wagstaff improperly notarized a document in which he had a direct personal interest, in violation of New York notary law.
- Wagstaff submitted or relied on settlement-related documents that lack Fowler’s signature, undermining their validity with respect to the estate.
This article was drafted with the aid of Grok, an AI tool by xAI, under the direction and editing of Robert Cox to ensure accuracy and adherence to journalistic standards.