Otero v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. New York

Otero v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJune 7, 2023

Docket7:20-cv-05704

StatusUnknown

This text of Otero v. Commissioner of Social Security (Otero v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Otero v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANGEL LUIS OTERO, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. 20-CV-5704 (KMK) v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, RECOMMENDATION Defendant.

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: On March 8, 2023, Mr. Charles Binder, Plaintiff Angel Luis Otero Jr.’s attorney, filed a motion (the “Motion”) seeking $23,904.50 in attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Dkt. No. 23.) On March 29, 2023, the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) filed a response in her limited role “resembling that of a trustee for the claimant[ ].” (Dkt. No. 26 (“Def.’s Ltr.”) at 1 (quoting Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 798 n.6 (2002).) Defendant did not take a specific position with respect to the fee request, and instead “respectfully defer[red] to the Court to determine the reasonableness of the requested fee under these circumstances.” Id. at 3. On March 31, 2023, this Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause. (Order of Reference (Dkt. No. 27).)

On May 2, 2023, Judge Krause issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant the Motion. (R. & R. (Dkt. No. 28).) Judge Krause provided notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), and Rule 72(b) and Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to the R&R were due within 14 days from the service of the R&R, and that the failure to file objections within the relevant period of time would result in a waiver of objections and preclude appellate review. (/d. at 8-9.) Defendant has not filed any objections. (See generally Dkt.) When no objections are filed, the Court reviews an R&R on a dispositive motion for clear error. See Goodall v. Von Blanckensee, No. 17-CV-3615, 2020 WL 1082565, at *1 (S.D.NLY. 2020); Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F. Supp. 2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Eisenberg v. New Eng. Motor Freight, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). The Court has reviewed the Motion and R&R, and finding no substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the R&R. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R, dated May 2, 2023, is ADOPTED in its entirety. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 7, 2023 ents White Plains, New York «KENNETH KARAS) United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANGEL LUIS OTERO, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. 20-CV-5704 (KMK) v. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, RECOMMENDATION Defendant.

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: On March 8, 2023, Mr. Charles Binder, Plaintiff Angel Luis Otero Jr.’s attorney, filed a motion (the “Motion”) seeking $23,904.50 in attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Dkt. No. 23.) On March 29, 2023, the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) filed a response in her limited role “resembling that of a trustee for the claimant[ ].” (Dkt. No. 26 (“Def.’s Ltr.”) at 1 (quoting Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 798 n.6 (2002).) Defendant did not take a specific position with respect to the fee request, and instead “respectfully defer[red] to the Court to determine the reasonableness of the requested fee under these circumstances.” Id. at 3. On March 31, 2023, this Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause. (Order of Reference (Dkt. No. 27).)

On May 2, 2023, Judge Krause issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant the Motion. (R. & R. (Dkt. No. 28).) Judge Krause provided notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), and Rule 72(b) and Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to the R&R were due within 14 days from the service of the R&R, and that the failure to file objections within the relevant period of time would result in a waiver of objections and preclude appellate review. (/d. at 8-9.) Defendant has not filed any objections. (See generally Dkt.) When no objections are filed, the Court reviews an R&R on a dispositive motion for clear error. See Goodall v. Von Blanckensee, No. 17-CV-3615, 2020 WL 1082565, at *1 (S.D.NLY. 2020); Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F. Supp. 2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Eisenberg v. New Eng. Motor Freight, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). The Court has reviewed the Motion and R&R, and finding no substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the R&R. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R, dated May 2, 2023, is ADOPTED in its entirety. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 7, 2023 ents White Plains, New York «KENNETH KARAS) United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Otero v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otero-v-commissioner-of-social-security-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack