A proposed $9 million federal settlement tied to the freezing death of 8-year-old Thomas Valva has unraveled after the boy’s mother refused to approve the agreement, throwing the long-running civil case into uncertainty.
Justyna Zubko-Valva, Thomas’ mother, declined to sign off on the settlement with Suffolk County during a tense court conference last week, telling a federal judge the amount was insufficient and accusing her own attorneys of misconduct, according to sources familiar with the proceedings.
“I’m at a loss as to what to do here,” U.S. District Judge Edward Korman said after Zubko-Valva would not finalize the agreement, according to Newsday. The conference reportedly lasted nearly two hours.
The deal, which was reached in principle in September, was intended to resolve a federal lawsuit accusing Suffolk County’s Child Protective Services of failing to intervene despite repeated warnings about abuse inside the Valva home. With Zubko-Valva’s refusal, the settlement is now in limbo, with no clear path forward.
A Case That Shook Long Island
Thomas Valva died in January 2020 after enduring months of abuse at the hands of his father, former NYPD officer Michael Valva, and Valva’s then-fiancée, Angela Pollina. Prosecutors said the autistic child was repeatedly forced to sleep in an unheated garage during winter, leading to his death from hypothermia.
Both Michael Valva and Pollina were later convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.
The case sparked widespread outrage and prompted scrutiny of Suffolk County’s child welfare system, particularly after records showed that Child Protective Services had received multiple reports of abuse but failed to remove the child from the home.
Lawsuit Sought $200 Million
In 2022, Zubko-Valva filed a $200 million lawsuit against Suffolk County, alleging gross negligence and systemic failures that allowed the abuse to continue unchecked.
The proposed $9 million settlement—far less than the original demand—was intended to resolve the case without trial. However, Zubko-Valva told the court that the figure does not adequately address the harm suffered by her family, according to Newsday.
Complicating matters, she also told the judge she urgently needs funds to avoid foreclosure on her home, a contradiction that reportedly stunned those present in the courtroom.
Dispute Over Money and Legal Representation
During the court conference, Zubko-Valva raised concerns that the terms of the settlement had changed from what she initially understood. She reportedly believed she would receive most of the money herself, with smaller portions reserved for her surviving sons.
Instead, the settlement structure included allocations for the children, attorney’s fees, and potential tax obligations—terms she now opposes, sources said.
She also accused her attorneys of forging her signature and deliberately prolonging the case to increase their legal fees. Those allegations were strongly disputed by her legal team.
One source close to the matter described the dispute bluntly: “She doesn’t want to split the settlement with her children, pay attorneys’ fees, or owe taxes—and feels she should receive more money if those obligations remain.”
Attorneys Deny Wrongdoing
Zubko-Valva’s attorneys have denied any misconduct, telling the court they have repeatedly attempted to meet with her to complete the necessary paperwork, only to be rebuffed.
“The Liakas Law Firm fought successfully for a $9 million client settlement and systemic changes to protect New York children,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a spokesman for the firm. “We have no involvement with any internal family disputes.”
What Happens Next?
Legal experts following the case say Judge Korman could still attempt to salvage the settlement, though enforcing an agreement without the plaintiff’s signature would be highly unusual and legally complex.
For now, the settlement remains stalled, prolonging a case that has already dragged on for years—and reopening painful wounds in a tragedy that once galvanized calls for reform in Suffolk County’s child protection system.
Whether the case moves forward toward trial, renegotiation, or collapse altogether remains uncertain.
