Dubuque v. Bisignano

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
BRYAN D.,
Plaintiff,
v. 	8:23-CV-1200
(DJS)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________________
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this matter on September 25, 2023, seeking review
of the Commissioner’s determination denying Plaintiff’s application for disability
benefits. 	Dkt. No. 1. 	In December 2023, the Court remanded the matter to the Social
Security Administration for further proceedings by virtue of a stipulation between the
parties. Dkt. Nos. 9-10. An award of attorney’s fees was previously entered pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Dkt. No. 12. Upon review of the matter on
remand, the Administrative Law Judge issued a favorable decision awarding Plaintiff
benefits. 	Dkt. No. 13-1, ¶ 5. Plaintiff’s counsel has now filed a Motion for Attorney’s
Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. No. 13. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks
attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,633, of which he would remit to Plaintiff the sum
previously awarded under the EAJA. Dkt. No. 13-1 at ¶¶ 9-10.
For the reasons that follow, the Motion is granted.
Case 8:23-cv-01200-DJS Document 15 Filed 05/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
II. DISCUSSION
The Social Security Act provides:
Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this
subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court
may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such
representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due
benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment.
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). This section “calls for court review of such arrangements as
an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.”
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). The court “must give due deference to
the intent of the parties, but it ought not blindly approve every fee request made pursuant
to a contingent agreement.” Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367, 372 (2d Cir. 1990).
“[A] requested fee based on a contingent fee arrangement should be enforced
unless the court finds it to be unreasonable.” Id. at 370. In determining whether a fee is
reasonable, a court should consider whether the attorney is responsible for a delay in the
proceedings, as well as “whether there has been fraud or overreaching in making the
agreement, and whether the requested amount is so large as to be a windfall to the
attorney.” 	Id. at 372; see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. at 808. 	In determining
whether an award would constitute a windfall, the Second Circuit has identified a number
of relevant factors including the ability and expertise of counsel, the nature and length of
counsel’s relationship with the client, the satisfaction of the claimant, and the uncertainty
of the outcome of the case. Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F.4th 845, 854-56 (2d Cir. 2022); see
also Porter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2009 WL 2045688, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. July 10, 2009)
(identifying three related considerations). 	If the court finds the fee is unreasonable, the
Case 8:23-cv-01200-DJS Document 15 Filed 05/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
court “may reduce the fee provided it states the reasons for and the amounts of the
deductions.” Id. at *2.
Here, a contingency fee agreement was in place between Plaintiff and his counsel.
Dkt. No. 13-2. 	The amount requested by counsel is consistent with the agreement and
there is no evidence of fraud or overreaching. Nor is there any evidence that the award
sought would constitute a windfall. 	Defendant does not contest the timeliness of the
Motion or oppose the application. Dkt. No. 14.
III. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for 	Attorney’s 	Fees 	(Dkt. 	No. 	13) 	is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded the sum of $4,633 as fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), to be paid from the amount withheld by the Commissioner of Social
Security from the past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff; and it is further
ORDERED, that counsel is directed to remit to Plaintiff any sum that was
previously awarded and received as fees pursuant to the EAJA; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Decision and Order
upon the parties to this action in accordance with the Local Rules.
Dated: May 27, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 8:23-cv-01200-DJS Document 15 Filed 05/27/26 Page 3 of 3