UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------x CARLIN SOTO,

Plaintiff,

-against- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Case No. 19-CV-4064-FB KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. ------------------------------------------------x Appearances: For the Plaintiff: For the Defendant: CHRISTOPHER JAMES BOWES CHRISTOPHER HURD 54 Cobblestone Drive Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Shoreham, New York 11786 Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: Following a remand from this Court, Carlin Soto received $77,471.00 in past-due disability benefits. His counsel, Christopher James Bowes, now seeks approval of an award of $13,839.58 in attorney’s fees.

(b) entitles prevailing plaintiffs in Social Security actions to “reasonable [attorney's] fee[s] [that are] not in excess of 25 percent of the total past-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 proposed fee award here is below the 25% cap because Bowes has excluded $5,528.17 in fees that he might have recovered under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

(2002) (noting that

fees may be awarded under both § 406(b) and EAJA, but that attorney must refund smaller award to client). Although there is no guarantee that he would have prevailed under the EAJA, he has graciously not pressed the issue. There is, moreover, no suspicion of fraud or overreach.

To assess the third factor, the Second Circuit has directed district courts to consider (1) the expertise and ability of the claimant’s lawyer and whether he or she was particularly efficient; (2) the nature and length of the lawyer’s professional

relationship with the claimant, including any representation at the agency level; (3) the satisfaction of the claimant; and (4) the level of uncertainty of an award of benefits and the efforts it took to achieve the result of a disability ruling. See Fields v, Kijakazi,

(2d Cir. 2022). Having considered those

guidelines, the Court finds that the requested award does not constitute a windfall. Accordingly, the Court approves Bowes’s requested award. The Commissioner is directed to disburse $13,839.58 of Soto’s past-due benefits to

2 Bowes and the balance to Soto. SO ORDERED.

_/S/ Frederic Block________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York October 24, 2023

3