SUMMARY ORDER

The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the Albion Correctional Facility, and the four individual defendants (collectively, “DOCCS”) appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (McCarthy, M.J.). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Judgement was entered in Cole-Hoover’s favor after the parties reached a settlement, the material terms of which were placed on the record by the parties on November 5, 2012. Counsel for the DOCCS represented to the district court that he “offered and the plaintiff ... accepted $750,000 total, inclusive of damages, costs and fees to settle this case” and pending, related litigation. A. 164-65. Counsel for DOCCS further explained that a written stipulation would follow because it needed to collect and review documentation pertaining to Medicare or Medicaid, which “[did not] have anything to do with the merits of the case.” Id. at 170. The court confirmed that the DOCCS had articulated on the record the “material terms of the settlement and ... although documentation needfed] to be executed to confirm the settlement, the settlement of these four actions w[ould] be effective as of [that day], notwithstanding any additional documentation which need[ed] to be executed.” Id. at 166.

Unfortunately, the parties’ agreement to conclude this dispute — which spans more than a decade — did not last long; disagreements arose during the negotiation of a written stipulation. The district court denied cross-motions to enforce stipulations, both of which differed from the terms announced in open court. Subsequently, the district court entered judgment for Cole-Hoover. A. 140. The DOCCS appeals.

The parties expressed a clear intent to settle and placed the material terms of their settlement on the record, and “neither party made any express reservation to be bound only by a writing.” Powell v. Omnicom, 497 F.3d 124, 129-30 (2d Cir. 2007). As the magistrate judge observed, “[although defendants could have conditioned the settlement on plaintiffs providing a physician’s letter or agreeing to a [Medicare set-aside], they did not do so.” A. 131. And, “[i]f defendants considered plaintiffs Medicare status to be critical in deciding whether to settle, they should have ascertained that status before agreeing that the settlement was effective as of November 5, 2012.” Id. at 132.

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.