Hector Luis Lugo Irizarry v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HECTOR LUIS LUGO IRIZARRY,

Plaintiff, No. 23-CV-1894 (KMK) v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL RECOMMENDATION SECURITY, Defendant. KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: On March 6, 2023, Hector Luis Lugo Irizarry (“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. (Dkt. No. 1.) On August 2, 2023, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Andrew Krause. (Dkt. No. 10.) On November 3, 2023, the Court approved the Parties’ proposed stipulation and order remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. (Dkt. No. 13.) After a second administrative hearing, the Social Security Administration awarded Plaintiff benefits and, pursuant to a fee agreement between Plaintiff and his counsel, withheld 25 percent of the past- due benefits for payment of attorney’s fees. (Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) 5 (Dkt. No. 28).) On October 11, 2025, Plaintiff moved, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), for an award of attorney’s fees consistent with that agreement. (Mot. for Attorney Fees (Dkt. No. 25).) Judge Krause issued a thorough Report & Recommendation on December 10, 2025, recommending Plaintiff’s Motion be granted because the fee sought was consistent with the fee agreement, and reasonable considering its percentage of the past-due benefits and factors including the character of the representation and results achieved, the attorney’s responsibility for any delay, and the size of the benefits in comparison to the time spent on the case. (R&R 4-8.) No objections were filed.! When no objections are filed, the Court reviews an R&R 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, finding no substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the R&R in its entirety. It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, dated December 10, 2025, is ADOPTED in its entirety, and that Plaintiff's counsel be awarded attorney’s fees consistent with the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion (Dkt. No. 22). SO ORDERED. ow White Plaine New York — — MENNETHMKARAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' 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 of the receipt of the R&R, and that the failure to object would constitute a waiver of either Party’s right to raise any objections to the R&R on appeal. (See R&R 8).