Abreu v. Grand Concourse Estates LLC
- Ona Wang
- 1:21-cv-05347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Abreu v. Grand Concourse Estates, Judge Wang approved the parties’ $45,000 settlement of wage claims.
Richard Abreu receives $35,000 under the approved settlement; his counsel receives $10,000, including $9,333 in fees and $667 in costs; and the defendants resolve the claims covered by the agreement.
What happened
In Abreu v. Grand Concourse Estates LLC, Richard Abreu alleged that the defendants failed to pay minimum wage and overtime and provided inaccurate wage statements. He also alleged retaliation and other claims under federal and New York law.
The parties reached a settlement and asked the court to approve it. The agreement provides Abreu $35,000 and his counsel $10,000, including $9,333 in fees and $667 in costs. The court found the settlement fair and reasonable after considering the possible recovery, litigation risks, negotiations, and agreement terms.
Judge Ona T. Wang approved the settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. The opinion states that the case’s wage-related claims will be resolved through the approved settlement.
The detailed version
- Abreu v. Grand Concourse Estates LLC · No. 1:21-cv-05347
- Ona Wang
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
Richard Abreu sued Staff YMY Inc., Grand Concourse Estates LLC, 2406 Realty LLC, Simcha Applegrad, and Milton R. Reisman. He alleged that he worked as a building superintendent and regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving the required minimum wage and overtime pay. He also alleged that the defendants provided inaccurate wage statements and underreported his work hours. An amended complaint added retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. The complaint also included common-law breach-of-contract and account-stated claims.
The parties later reached a settlement through mediation and asked the court to approve it. The parties consented to Judge Wang’s authority to decide the request.
Court’s Analysis
Under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., a court must approve a settlement resolving FLSA claims before a stipulated dismissal with prejudice can take effect. The court evaluates whether the agreement is fair and reasonable, including the plaintiff’s possible recovery, the burdens and risks of continued litigation, whether the negotiations were conducted at arm’s length, and whether fraud or collusion appears.
Abreu claimed a maximum recovery of $86,694.30, excluding attorney fees and costs. The proposed settlement totaled $45,000, with $35,000 going to Abreu. The court characterized that amount as approximately 81% of his claimed best-case unpaid-wage recovery, excluding liquidated damages and penalties. The defendants maintained that they complied with the wage laws, and Abreu acknowledged that the evidence was conflicting. The court concluded that settlement would avoid the burdens and expenses of further litigation.
The parties represented that the agreement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations involving experienced counsel, and the record contained no evidence of fraud or collusion. The release was limited to employment-related wage claims through the date the agreement was signed. The agreement had no confidentiality or non-disparagement provision.
Disposition
The court approved the proposed settlement agreement as fair and reasonable. Abreu will receive $35,000. His counsel will receive $10,000 from the settlement, consisting of $9,333 in attorney fees and $667 in costs.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.