DECISION and ORDER Currently, before the Court in this personal injury action filed by Odemaris Ocasio (“Plaintiff”) against Six Flags Great Escape, L.P., d/b/a Six Flags Great Escape Lodge & Indoor Waterpark (“Defendant”), is Defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 27.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is denied. I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND A. Plaintiff’s Complaint and Relevant Procedural History Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on June 22, 2021, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserts the following three claims based on a personal injury that Plaintiff allegedly sustained while on Defendant’s premises: (1) negligence; (2) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; and (3) negligent training. (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 20, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. (Dkt. Nos. 7-8.) On August 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and, on August 9, 2021, Defendant filed its reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 14.) On September 1, 2021, United States District Court Judge Mark G. Mastroianni issued a Text Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss and transferring the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1631 based on lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 15.) On October 4, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Dkt. No. 23.) On November 19, 2021, Defendant filed its motion to enforce a settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 27.) On April 28, 2022, after the Court granted Plaintiff multiple extensions of time so that she could retain new counsel, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 38.) On May 2, 2022, Defendant filed its reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (Dkt. No. 40.) B. Summary of the Parties’ Briefing on Defendant’s Motion to Enforce a Settlement Agreement 1. Defendant’s Memorandum of Law Generally, in support of its motion to enforce a settlement agreement, Defendant argues that there is no question that the parties reached an agreement on October 29, 2021, when Plaintiff’s former counsel, Anthony Facchini, informed Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff had accepted the terms of Defendant’s settlement offer. (Dkt. No. 27-3, at 5.) More specifically, Defendant argues that at no point in time did Anthony Facchini express any disagreement with, or rejection of, the terms of the settlement reached by the parties. (Id. at 5-6.) Defendant argues that, even when Anthony Facchini told Defendant’s counsel that he had been unable to reach Plaintiff to have the settlement documents executed, Anthony Facchini never indicated that there was a dispute about whether the parties had reached a settlement. (Id. at 6.) Defendant argues that the parties agreed to the essential terms of the settlement (i.e., that Defendant pay a set sum in exchange for a full and complete release of all claims and dismissal of this action as to Defendant and others), and that Plaintiff may not negate the settlement to which she previously agreed. (Id.) 2. Plaintiff’s Opposition Memorandum of Law Generally, in her opposition, Plaintiff sets forth three arguments. (Dkt. No. 38-5.) First, Plaintiff argues that she never communicated to anyone her intent to accept Defendant’s settlement offer. (Id. at 5.) More specifically, Plaintiff argues that she never accepted Defendant’s offer to settle this action, and therefore Anthony Facchini and his brother, Richard Facchini (“Richard Facchini”), who is also an attorney, had no actual or apparent authority to settle on her behalf. (Id.) Plaintiff argues that Anthony Facchini did not have actual authority to settle this action for the following three reasons: (1) Plaintiff never signed any agreement to release her claims; (2) Richard Facchini has confirmed by sworn affidavit that he never received settlement authority from Plaintiff; and (3) Anthony Facchini has confirmed by sworn affidavit that he incorrectly communicated Plaintiff’s acceptance of Defendant’s settlement offer. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff also argues that both Anthony Facchini and Richard Facchini did not have apparent authority to settle her claims because Plaintiff, as the principal, never communicated with Defendant’s counsel and, as a result, no apparent authority was created. (Id.) Plaintiff further argues that, unlike the facts in the cases that Defendant cites in its motion, the facts in this case establish that Plaintiff never intended to settle this action; namely, Plaintiff argues that she did not learn that Anthony Facchini communicated to Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff had accepted the settlement offer until after Plaintiff requested her file from Anthony Facchini to review. (Id. at 7-8 [emphasis added].) Plaintiff argues that, upon learning this information, she promptly contacted the Court, sought new counsel, and opposed the motion. (Id.) Second, Plaintiff argues that, to the extent the parties’ unsigned settlement agreement is relevant here, it was created under an incorrect legal conclusion by Anthony Facchini, and therefore the Court should reject Defendant’s attempt to force a settlement upon Plaintiff due to Anthony Facchini’s errors. (Id. at 8.) Third, Plaintiff argues that the application of state law would not change the outcome of this motion. (Id.) More specifically, Plaintiff argues that Richard Facchini was not involved in her case and had no actual or apparent authority to settle her claims, and that it was unreasonable for Defendant’s counsel to believe he had such authority. (Id. at 9-10.) 3. Defendant’s Reply Memorandum of Law Generally, in its reply, Defendant sets forth three arguments. (Dkt. No. 40.) First, Defendant argues that it properly relied on Anthony Facchini’s apparent authority in settling the action, not the apparent authority of Richard Facchini. (Id. at 3-7.) More specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot meet her burden of proving that Anthony Facchini did not have the authority to settle this case on her behalf. (Id. at 4.) Defendant argues that the affidavits submitted by Plaintiff, Anthony Facchini, and Richard Facchini, do not constitute affirmative or convincing evidence that they did not have the requisite authority to settle the lawsuit or that Defendant improperly relied on their representations because, when analyzing whether parties entered into a settlement agreement, the Court must look at “their objective intent as manifested by their expressed words and deeds at the time.” (Id. at 4-5 [quoting Stetson v. Duncan, 707 F. Supp. 657, 666 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)].) Defendant argues that Anthony Facchini maintained apparent authority because he was Plaintiff’s lone attorney of record at the time, actively participated in all court appearances, and was her representative in correspondence and verbal communications with defense counsel. (Id. at 5.) Defendant argues that Anthony Facchini also informed Defendant’s counsel that he had communicated the settlement offer to Plaintiff and, on more than one occasion, represented (both verbally and in writing) that the case was settled. (Id.) Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s contention that a settlement agreement is not enforceable unless signed or made in open court is incorrect. (Id. at 6.) Defendant further argues that Plaintiff’s contention that the settlement agreement should not be upheld because it was based upon a flawed legal conclusion is not reason to invalidate the agreement, because “risk of loss from the unauthorized acts of a dishonest agent falls on the principal that selected that agent” and because Plaintiff has other recourse if her prior counsel acted beyond her authority (i.e., a claim against her prior counsel). (Id. at 7 [quoting In re Dreir, LLP, 450 B.R. 452, 457-58 (S.D.N.Y. Bankr. 2011)].) Third, Defendant argues that New York State law does not change the outcome of this motion. (Id. at 7-9.) More specifically, Defendant argues that Anthony Facchini was clearly involved in Plaintiff’s case, actively participated in settlement discussions, and relayed to Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff had agreed to settle — facts that each provided Defendant (and its counsel) with reason to rely on those representations. (Id. at 8.) Defendant argues that, even if Plaintiff’s prior counsel exceeded his authority, Plaintiff’s remedy is against her prior counsel, not Defendant. (Id.) Defendant further argues that, contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, Defendant did not rely on the authority of Richard Facchini in settling this action, but instead relied on Anthony Facchini’s explicit statements that the case was settled, when preparing the settlement documents. (Id. at 8-9.) II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARD “A district court has the authority to enforce a settlement agreement reached in a case pending before it.” Sorensen v. Consol. Rail Corp., 992 F. Supp. 146, 149 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (Homer, M.J.) (citing Cruz v. Korean Air Lines, Co., Ltd., 838 F. Supp. 843, 845-46 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)). “Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside[.]” Hallock v. State of N.Y., 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230 (N.Y. 1984); Willgerodt on Behalf of Majority Peoples’ Fund for the 21st Century, Inc., 953 F. Supp. 557, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). The question of whether state or federal law controls the enforceability of oral settlement agreements in this context is “ an open one.” Figueroa v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Sanitation, 475 F. App’x 365, 366 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (citing Ciaramella v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc., 131 F.3d 320, 322, n. 1 (2d Cir. 1997)).1 “‘Nonetheless, federal courts in the Second Circuit regularly apply New York law, observing that there is no meaningful substantive difference between federal and New York law with regard to enforceability.’” Vacco v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc., 661 F. Supp. 2d 186, 198, n. 14 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (McAvoy, J.) (quoting Massie v. Metro. Museum of Art, 651 F. Supp. 2d 88, 92-93 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). III. ANALYSIS After carefully considering the matter, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for the reasons stated in Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum of law. (Dkt. No. 38-5.) To those reasons, the Court adds the following analysis, which is intended to supplement, and not to supplant, Plaintiff’s reasoning. Before providing its legal analysis of the issues involved in Defendant’s motion, a brief review of the exchanges between Defendant’s counsel and Anthony Facchini will be beneficial. On the afternoon of October 26, 2021, Defendant’s counsel sent Anthony Facchini an email containing a subject line that read, “Ocasio — any luck getting a demand?” (Dkt. No. 27-4, at 3.) Within thirty minutes, Anthony Facchini responded and asked if Defendant’s counsel had time for a phone call the following morning, to which Defendant’s counsel responded and a time was confirmed. (Id. at 1-3.) According to Defendant’s motion, during that subsequent phone call between counsel, “[Defendant] offered [Plaintiff] [an undisclosed sum] to settle their dispute, and [Anthony Facchini] stated that he would bring the offer to her.” (Dkt. No. 27-3, at 2.) Three days later, on October 29, 2021, Anthony Facchini sent the following text message to Defendant’s counsel: “Good evening, Heather. It’s Anthony Facchini. My brother, Richard, got Ms. Ocasio to accept the offer. I know you are slammed with work, but when you have a chance[,] please email me the release so Richard can have her sign. Thank you.” (Dkt. No. 27-5, at 2.) Defendant’s counsel responded, as follows: “Excellent! You owe your brother a beer! Lol! I’ll have it to you tonight[.]” (Id.) A few hours later, Defendant’s counsel emailed Anthony Facchini with the written release, asking him to provide Plaintiff’s W-9 and “ confirm how the check should be made payable so [Defendant's counsel could] request the check while [Anthony Facchini was] getting [the release] executed.” (Dkt. No. 27-6, at 2.) Again, three days later, on November 1, 2021, Anthony Facchini responded regarding who would sign the stipulation of dismissal. (Dkt. No. 27-7, at 2.) One week later, on November 8, 2021, Anthony Facchini emailed Defendant’s counsel and stated the following about Plaintiff: I hope all is well with you. After advising my brother, Richard, she would settle the case[,] she has avoided all communications from our office. This morning, she spoke with my legal assistant seeking the case number as she may have a New York licensed attorney to take over her representation. In the meantime, as we are quickly approaching court deadline and I hope to be out of the office next week[,] a Motion to Admit myself Pro Hac Vice will be filed on my behalf. Would you please assent to it? In addition, the Rule 16 Initial Conference memorandum is coming due, I will get you an initial draft of it. (Dkt. No. 27-8, at 2.) Approximately three weeks later, on November 27, 2021, Defendant filed the current motion to enforce a settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 27.) In support of her opposition, Plaintiff (who is now represented by new counsel) has submitted three affidavits, including one from herself, one from Anthony Facchini, and one from Richard Facchini. These affidavits provide the following six key facts: (1) upon hearing of the settlement offer, Plaintiff never told either Anthony Facchini or Richard Facchini that she accepted the offer (despite receiving pressure to accept it) but stated that she “needed time to process…and…needed a second opinion” (Dkt. No. 38-2, at
4-7); (2) Plaintiff did not know Anthony Facchini “had told the other lawyer that [she] had accepted their offer to settle” until after she requested her file from his office to review (id. at
