Carlos Escobar v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CARLOS ESCOBAR, Plaintiff, No. 23-CV-5722 (KMK) v. ORDER ADOPTING FRANK BISIGNANO, COMMISSIONER OF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: On July 5, 2023, Carlos Escobar (“Plaintiff”) brought this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Plaintiff's application for disability benefits. (Compl. 1–3 (Dkt. No. 1).)1 On November 27, 2023, pursuant to an agreement between the Parties to remand the claim for further administrative proceedings, the Court ordered that the case be remanded to the Commissioner. (Dkt. No. 13 (Stipulation and Remand Order).) On March 1, 2024, the Court so-ordered a stipulation between the Parties for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, equal to $7,953.50. (Dkt. No. 19 (Stipulation).) On March 14, 2024, the United States Department of the Treasury intercepted the EAJA payment and applied $3,250.52 from the funds to satisfy an outstanding tax debt belonging to Plaintiff, which left $4,702.78 for the attorneys’ fees payment. (Decl. of Christopher J. Bowes (“Bowes Decl.”) Ex. C at 16 (Dkt. No. 21).) On remand, it was determined that Plaintiff was disabled and entitled to benefits. (Bowes Decl. ¶ 18.) On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel Christopher J. Bowes (“Mr. Bowes”) filed the instant Motion seeking an order approving the

1 In citations to record materials, the Court refers to page numbers as automatically generated by the Electronic Case Filing system. contingent fee agreement between Plaintiff and Counsel, and directing a disbursement of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $21,457.75 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (See Dkt. No. 20.) On July 11, 2025, the Court issued an amended order referring the Action to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause (“Judge Krause”) for disposition of the Motion. (See Dkt. No. 24.) On August 13, 2025, Judge Krause issued a thorough Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),

recommending that Mr. Bowes’ motion be granted. (See Dkt. No. 25 (R&R).) No objections were filed.2 When no objections are filed, the Court reviews an R&R on a dispositive motion for clear error. See Torres v. Golden Home Furniture Inc., No. 20-CV-4789, 2023 WL 3791807, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2023) (citing Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F. Supp. 2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)); see also ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-9527, 2022 WL 17070111, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022) (same). The Court has reviewed the R&R and the Petition, and finding no substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the R&R in its entirety.

2 Judge Krause provided notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days from the receipt of the R&R, and that the failure to object would constitute a waiver of either Parties’ right to raise any objections to this R&R on appeal. (See R&R 9.) It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, dated August 13, 2025, is ADOPTED in its entirety. The motion for approval of attorneys’ fees is granted in the amount of $21,457.75, and Mr. Bowes is directed to refund $4,702.78 to Plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed terminate the pending motion at Dkt. No. 20.

SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18, 2025 (L4gk ~ White Plains, New York aaNet KARAS United States District Judge