Lisnitzer v. Shah et al

Filing 191

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the foregoing reasons (Please See Order for Further Details), the Court affirms and adopts the well-reasoned R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff's motion for attorney's f ees and costs is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded $1,121,666.96 in attorney's fees and $6,072.12 in costs. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor. So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 8/31/2022. (Ortiz, Grisel)

Case 2:11-cv-04641-JMA-ARL Document 191 Filed 08/31/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3406
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
LESLIE LISNITZER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
-against-

For Online Publication Only

ORDER
11-CV-04641 (JMA) (ARL)

HOWARD ZUCKER, M.D., as Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Health, and
MICHAEL HEIN, as Commissioner of the Office
of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the
New York State Department of Family Assistance,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Before the Court are objections submitted by Defendants Howard Zucker, M.D., as
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Public Health, and Michael Hein, as
Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State
Department of Family Assistance, to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), which recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for
attorney’s fees and costs, and award Plaintiff $1,121,666.96 in attorney’s fees and $6,072.12 in
costs. (ECF No. 188.)
Defendants timely filed objections to the R&R (ECF No. 189 (“R&R Objections”)), and
Plaintiff timely responded to Defendants’ objections. (ECF No. 190.) After conducting a review
of the full record (including the motion papers, R&R, and objections) and applicable law, the Court
adopts Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a court must “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which

Case 2:11-cv-04641-JMA-ARL Document 191 Filed 08/31/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3407
objection[s] [are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States ex rel. Coyne v.
Amgen, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 3d 295, 297 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d sub nom. Coyne v. Amgen, Inc., 717 F.
App’x 26 (2d Cir. 2017). The Court “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). Those portions of
a report and recommendation to which there is no specific reasoned objection are reviewed for
clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
The Court finds no clear error in the portions of Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s R&R to which
there are no objections. Next, the Court turns to the portions of the R&R to which Defendants
have objected. First, Defendants contend that the attorney’s fees award should be reduced by 25%
“on the basis of the limited degree of success obtained,” instead of by 10%, as Magistrate Judge
Lindsay recommends. (R&R Objections at 2.) Second, Defendants object to Magistrate Judge
Lindsay’s recommendation that the Court deny Defendants’ request for a further reduction of the
fees award by 25% due to overbilling. (Id. at 7.) Regarding Defendants’ objections to these
portions of the R&R, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the full record and applicable
law, and the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s R&R.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court affirms and adopts the well-reasoned R&R in its
entirety as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded $1,121,666.96 in attorney’s fees and $6,072.12 in costs. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 31, 2022
Central Islip, New York

/s/ (JMA)
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2