Raeside v. Colvin

Sep 1, 2026
1:16-cv-01860

ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiff seeks attorney‘s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for work performed to secure Supplemental Security Income (“SSI“) benefits for Plaintiff (the “Motion“). The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo.

WHEREAS, the Motion filed September 12, 2025, seeks $9,747.12 in attorney‘s fees, reflecting 25% of Plaintiff‘s past-due SSI benefits.

WHEREAS, on December 8, 2025, Defendant filed a response, neither supporting nor opposing the Motion. The response explained that the $38,988.47 of past-due SSI benefits used by Plaintiff‘s counsel to calculate the requested fees is incorrect because that figure includes a supplemental payment by the State of New York, that the Social Security Administration calculated Plaintiff‘s past-due SSI benefits to be $37,286.47 and that a 25% fee based on this amount would be $9,321.62.

WHEREAS, when an attorney receives fees under both § 406(b) and the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA“), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, a “claimant‘s attorney must refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002);1 Natasha N. G. v. Bisignano, No. 24 Civ. 06844, 2026 WL 579184, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2026).

WHEREAS, Plaintiff‘s counsel represents that no fees were received under the EAJA in connection with the representation of Plaintiff.

WHEREAS, on March 11, 2026, Judge Ricardo issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report“) recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part, and that Plaintiff‘s counsel be awarded fees in the amount of $9,321.62.

WHEREAS, no party filed an objection to the Report.

WHEREAS, in reviewing a magistrate judge‘s report and recommendation, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “In a case such as this one, where no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Basurto v. Giants Deli, Inc., No. 25 Civ. 4903, 2026 WL 2432766, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2026).

WHEREAS, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record as to Judge Ricardo‘s recommendation. It is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Report is ADOPTED in full. For the reasons stated in the Report, Plaintiff‘s counsel is awarded $9,321.62 in attorney‘s fees under § 406(b), reflecting a de facto hourly rate of approximately $278 per hour.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 19 and 21.

Dated: September 1, 2026
New York, New York

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Notes

1
Unless otherwise indicated, in quoting cases, all internal quotation marks, footnotes and citations are omitted, and all alterations are adopted.