Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Jan. 13, 2025

Cintron v. Commissioner Of Social Security Of The United States

Judge
Andrew Krause
Docket
7:24-cv-03644
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cintron v. Colvin, Judge Krause ordered a remand for a hearing and a new Social Security decision.

Who this affects

Ahlyah Aida Cintron and the Social Security Commissioner; the case must return for a hearing opportunity and a new administrative decision.

What happened

In Ahlyah Aida Cintron v. Carolyn Colvin, the court entered judgment reversing and sending the case back to the Social Security Commissioner.

The case was sent back for more administrative proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge must offer Cintron a hearing and issue a new decision.

Judge Andrew Krause’s court entered the judgment on January 13, 2025, under a provision of federal law governing judicial review of Social Security decisions.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cintron v. Commissioner Of Social Security Of The United States · No. 7:24-cv-03644
Judge
Andrew Krause
Date
Jan. 13, 2025

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A remand sends the case back to the agency for additional proceedings rather than ending the administrative review process.

Proceedings Required on Remand

The Administrative Law Judge must offer Ahlyah Aida Cintron an opportunity for a hearing and issue a new decision. The judgment states that these instructions came from the court’s Stipulation and Order dated January 13, 2025.

Scope of the Judgment

The judgment does not explain the underlying dispute or identify the specific errors addressed in the Stipulation and Order. It states only that the action was reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.