UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------x CHRISTINA FARRELL,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -against- Case No. 20-CV-03200-FB

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ------------------------------------------------x Appearances: For the Plaintiff: For the Defendant: JEFFREY D. DELOTT BREON PEACE 366 North Broadway United States Attorney Suite 410k-3 By: ANNE M. ZEIGLER Jericho, New York 11753 SpecialAssistant United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: Plaintiff Christina Farrell (“Farrell”) received disability benefits after the Court vacated the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA’s”) denial of her application. Her attorney, Jeffrey D. Delott (“Delott”), now seeks approval of his contingency-fee agreement for 25% of Farrell’s past-due benefits, or $33,547.25. Delott’s unopposed request for fees is now granted.

(b) entitles prevailing plaintiffs in Social Security actions to due benefits to which the plaintiff is entitled.” Reasonableness depends on three factors: (1) whether the proposed fee is below the 25% statutory maximum; (2) whether the contingency-fee agreement is the product of fraud or attorney overreach; and (3) whether the requested amount is so large it constitutes a windfall to the

attorney. See Wells v. Sullivan,

(2d Cir. 1990). The first and second factors are not at issue. To assess the third factor, the Second Circuit recently provided guidelines to

determine if a fee award within the 25% cap constitutes a windfall. See Fields v, Kijakazi,

(2d Cir. 2022). First, the court should consider the expertise and ability of the claimant’s lawyer and whether he or she was particularly efficient. See

. Second, it should consider the nature and length of the lawyer’s

professional relationship with the claimant, including any representation at the agency level. See

. Third, a court should consider the satisfaction of the claimant. See

Fourth, a court should consider the level of uncertainty of an award

of benefits and the efforts it took to achieve the result of a disability ruling. See

There are no objections to Delott’s expertise or the quality of his representation. Delott has represented Farrell since June 2017. There is no evidence of any concerns regarding Farrell’s satisfaction with her representation or the

outcome of the matter. Lastly, there was a substantial level of uncertainty as to whether Delott would be found disabled, since her claim was initially denied by the Administration. The Court finds that the 39.7 hours spent on Farrell’s case were reasonable. The effective hourly rate of Farrell’s representation is $845.01 per hour. This is within the range approved by courts and less than what was deemed reasonable by

the Second Circuit in Fields. See Hughes v. Saul, No. 20-CV-01609 (ER),

at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 15, 2022); Baron v. Astrue,

, 637- 38 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (collecting cases with hourly fees ranging from $1,072.17 to

$2,100); Fields,

(2d Cir. 2022) (finding reasonable a fee request for Binder’s services at a de facto hourly rate of $1,556.98). Therefore, the Court approves Delott’s fee request. However, since the statute requires that the “claimant’s attorney… refund to the claimant the amount of the

smaller fee,” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

(2002), Farrell’s counsel must first refund to his client the $8,774.25 he received under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Contingent upon that refund, the Commissioner of Social Security is ordered to

disburse $33,547.25 to Delott.

_/S/ Frederic Block___________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York January 11, 2023