Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 24, 2023

Vicinanza v. Horizon Window Treatments, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-00657
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
EmploymentFlsaCivil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Vicinanza v. Horizon Window Treatments, Judge Vyskocil approved an overtime settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Who this affects

Vincent Vicinanza and Luis Morales will receive the settlement payments described in the order; Horizon Window Treatments, Inc. and Eric Abikzer must pay the $25,000 settlement, and the case is dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

Vicinanza v. Horizon Window Treatments, Inc. was brought by Vincent Vicinanza and Luis Morales against their former employer, Horizon Window Treatments, Inc., and Eric Abikzer. They alleged that the defendants violated federal and New York wage laws, including by failing to pay overtime.

The parties agreed to a $25,000 settlement. Vicinanza will receive $5,000, and Morales will receive $20,000, less a $6,666.67 attorneys’ fee. The court considered the parties’ disputed evidence, the risks of proving the claims, and the absence of fraud or collusion.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil found the settlement and attorneys’ fee fair and reasonable. She approved the settlement and ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the case may not be brought again in that form.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Vicinanza v. Horizon Window Treatments, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-00657
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
July 24, 2023

Background

Vincent Vicinanza and Luis Morales sued Horizon Window Treatments, Inc. and Eric Abikzer, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), including claims for unpaid overtime wages. The parties informed the Court that they had settled the case and submitted a revised motion asking the Court to approve the settlement.

Settlement Terms

The proposed settlement requires the defendants to pay $25,000. Vicinanza will receive $5,000, and Morales will receive $20,000. An attorneys’ fee of $6,666.67 will be deducted from Morales’s award. No attorneys’ fees will be deducted from Vicinanza’s award.

Court’s Analysis

The Court reviewed the settlement for fairness and reasonableness under the FLSA and Second Circuit law. Morales claimed $97,893.75 in wages, while Vicinanza claimed $41,739.94. Both plaintiffs also sought liquidated damages and up to $10,000 for NYLL violations. The Court noted that these amounts were based on the plaintiffs’ recollections, while the defendants said they had records showing that the plaintiffs did not work more than 40 hours in any week. The plaintiffs also acknowledged credibility concerns that could weaken their testimony at trial.

The Court concluded that the risks and weaknesses in the plaintiffs’ claims supported the settlement amount. It found no indication of fraud or collusion and noted that the agreement was negotiated at arm’s length with assistance from Magistrate Judge Moses and the Southern District’s Mediation program.

The Court also found the requested attorneys’ fee reasonable. The $6,666.67 fee represented one-third of Morales’s $20,000 award, was consistent with his retainer agreement, and was less than one-third of the total $25,000 settlement.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil approved the settlement and ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was requested to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.