Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. New York

Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedSeptember 7, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-04095-JGK

StatusUnknown

This text of Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security (Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ──────────────────────────────────── MICHAEL ANDREWS,

Plaintiff, 19 cv 4095 (JGK)

- against - ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ──────────────────────────────────── JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this Court’s Order reversing the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the matter to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and should only be granted where the moving party demonstrates “an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Schoolcraft v. City of New York, 298 F.R.D. 134, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); United States v. Alvarez-Estevez, No. 13 CR. 380 (JFK), 2014 WL 12681364, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2014). The plaintiff has failed to show that there is any basis to reconsider this Court’s prior decision that reversed a prior decision of the Commissioner and remanded for further administrative proceedings. Those further administrative proceedings were conducted before an Administrative Law Judge and were decided unfavorably to the plaintiff. The plaintiff may now seek review of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision by the Appeals Council and can seek expedited treatment. After

that decision, if he is dissatisfied with the result, he can again seek review in the District Court. The plaintiff may wish to seek the assistance of pro bono counsel. The motion for reconsideration is therefore denied. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 26. Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff at 3569 Dekalb Avenue, Apartment 2D, Bronx, NY 10467.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York September 7, 2020 ______/s/ John G. Koeltl_____ John G. Koeltl United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ──────────────────────────────────── MICHAEL ANDREWS,

Plaintiff, 19 cv 4095 (JGK)

- against - ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ──────────────────────────────────── JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this Court’s Order reversing the Commissioner’s decision and remanding the matter to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and should only be granted where the moving party demonstrates “an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Schoolcraft v. City of New York, 298 F.R.D. 134, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); United States v. Alvarez-Estevez, No. 13 CR. 380 (JFK), 2014 WL 12681364, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2014). The plaintiff has failed to show that there is any basis to reconsider this Court’s prior decision that reversed a prior decision of the Commissioner and remanded for further administrative proceedings. Those further administrative proceedings were conducted before an Administrative Law Judge and were decided unfavorably to the plaintiff. The plaintiff may now seek review of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision by the Appeals Council and can seek expedited treatment. After

that decision, if he is dissatisfied with the result, he can again seek review in the District Court. The plaintiff may wish to seek the assistance of pro bono counsel. The motion for reconsideration is therefore denied. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 26. Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff at 3569 Dekalb Avenue, Apartment 2D, Bronx, NY 10467.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York September 7, 2020 ______/s/ John G. Koeltl_____ John G. Koeltl United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-commissioner-of-social-security-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack