UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Purnanand Singh, Plaintiff, 1:24-cv-10018 (SDA) -against- ORDER The Packard Condominium, Defendant. STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: This case contains one or more claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A settlement was reached by the parties on April 29, 2025. (ECF No. 17.) The parties thereafter consented to have all proceedings held before me. (ECF No. 26.) On May 9, 2025, the Court entered an Order directing the parties to provide a copy of the settlement agreement to the Court together with a joint letter or motion explaining why the settlement, including any provision for attorney’s fees and costs, is fair, reasonable and adequate under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2015). (See 5/9/25 Order, ECF No. 19.) On June 20, 2025, Plaintiff submitted the required motion along with the proposed settlement agreement and related papers. (6/20/25 Motion, ECF No. 24.) Having reviewed the proposed settlement, the Court finds that it is fair and reasonable, given both the nature and scope of Plaintiff’s claims as well as the risks and expenses involved in additional litigation. See Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc.,

(S.D.N.Y. 2012). Moreover, the

settlement does not implicate any other Cheeks concerns, such as overbroad releases or restrictive confidentiality provisions. See Cheeks,

. As part of the settlement, Plaintiff seeks approval of $633 in costs and $12,455 in attorney’s fees, which is one-third of the settlement amount after costs, pursuant to a contingency fee agreement. (See Motion at 2; see also Retainer Agr., ECF No. 24-2.) “The fairness

review required by Cheeks ‘extends to the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs.’” Almanzar v. Silver Star Properties Corp., No. 23-CV-00819 (GWG),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2023) (quoting Fisher v. SD Prot. Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2020)). The Court finds that the requested attorney’s fees are reasonable. “Courts in this Circuit routinely approve of one-third contingency fees for FLSA cases.” Garay v. Euro Metalsmith, No.

23-CV-03451 (ARR) (JMW),

, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2023). Moreover, where there is no reason to question the reasonableness of the contingency agreement itself and the fees are “within the range of what FLSA practitioners demand in the marketplace[,]” courts have found attorney’s fees reasonable when they are “consistent with the retainer agreement agreed to by [the] plaintiff.” See Almanzar,

, at *3; see also Miller v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 20-CV-05244 (JMW),

, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2023) (“Following Fisher,

courts in this district have independently found an attorney fee representing one-third the settlement amount reasonable, where the attorney provided documentation of the signed retainer agreement between the attorney and plaintiff.”). Here, the Court finds that the contingency fee agreement is reasonable and that the requested fees are consistent with the agreement. Accordingly, the Court approves the requested attorney’s fees. Finally, the Court finds the requested costs to be reasonable. Plaintiff’s attorney seeks

$405 in filing fees and $228 in service of process costs (see Costs Receipts, ECF No. 24-4), “which are costs that are routinely recoverable in litigation[.]” Puerto v. Happy Life Home Health Agency Inc., No. 23-CV-04915 (GWG),

, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2023) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For these reasons, the Court approves the settlement. This action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as may be stated in the settlement agreement. The Court retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York June 24, 2025 Risa hd, Car STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge