Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. New York

Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedAugust 30, 2024

Docket1:20-cv-09613

StatusUnknown

This text of Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security (Salazar 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

Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

DOC#: □□ DATE FILED; 8/30/2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SALAZAR, Plaintiff, . 20-cv-09613 (ALC) -against- OPINION & ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge: Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ECF Nos. 34, 35 (“Mot.”), 36 (“Binder Decl.”). Plaintiff's counsel requests the statutory maximum 25% of the retroactive benefits awarded to Plaintiff which amounts to $12,520.00. Mot. at 2. The government neither supports nor opposes counsel’s based upon its own analysis of the reasonableness of the fee pursuant to the factors laid out in Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F. 4" 845 (2d Cir. 2022). Those factors include: (1) the ability and expertise of the attorney(s); (2) the nature and length of the relationship counsel had with the claimant; (3) the claimant’s satisfaction with the services provided by counsel; and (4) the uncertainty of an award of benefits. Jd. at 854-856. Counsel are experts in the area of social security law and represented Plaintiff across an extended period of time throughout several administrative hearings and appeals. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel for the Government have expressed dissatisfaction with counsel’s representation or objection to the requested fees. Therefore, the Court hereby authorizes counsel’s requested fees and directs counsel to refund Plaintiff any fees he previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act if such fees were less than those awarded in the instant

order pursuant to Gibrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees at ECF No. 34..

SO ORDERED. [Aorta y (2 Dated: August 30, 2024 New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

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

DOC#: □□ DATE FILED; 8/30/2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SALAZAR, Plaintiff, . 20-cv-09613 (ALC) -against- OPINION & ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge: Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ECF Nos. 34, 35 (“Mot.”), 36 (“Binder Decl.”). Plaintiff's counsel requests the statutory maximum 25% of the retroactive benefits awarded to Plaintiff which amounts to $12,520.00. Mot. at 2. The government neither supports nor opposes counsel’s based upon its own analysis of the reasonableness of the fee pursuant to the factors laid out in Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F. 4" 845 (2d Cir. 2022). Those factors include: (1) the ability and expertise of the attorney(s); (2) the nature and length of the relationship counsel had with the claimant; (3) the claimant’s satisfaction with the services provided by counsel; and (4) the uncertainty of an award of benefits. Jd. at 854-856. Counsel are experts in the area of social security law and represented Plaintiff across an extended period of time throughout several administrative hearings and appeals. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel for the Government have expressed dissatisfaction with counsel’s representation or objection to the requested fees. Therefore, the Court hereby authorizes counsel’s requested fees and directs counsel to refund Plaintiff any fees he previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act if such fees were less than those awarded in the instant

order pursuant to Gibrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees at ECF No. 34..

SO ORDERED. [Aorta y (2 Dated: August 30, 2024 New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salazar-v-commissioner-of-social-security-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack