Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 3, 2025

K v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:22-cv-03854
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In wen K v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Furman granted counsel $20,072.50 in fees and ordered an EAJA refund to plaintiff.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and the plaintiff’s attorney were affected: the attorney received $20,072.50 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), and was ordered to reimburse the plaintiff $7,461.56 previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

What happened

In wen K v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff’s attorney asked for fees from the plaintiff’s retroactive Social Security benefits under federal law.

The court granted $20,072.50 in attorney fees, equal to 25% of the plaintiff’s retroactive benefits. Counsel had also received $7,461.56 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, so the court ordered counsel to repay that smaller amount to the plaintiff.

Judge Furman entered the order on November 3, 2025, and directed the clerk to close the fee motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
K v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-03854
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Nov. 3, 2025

Background

The plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), seeking payment from the plaintiff’s retroactive Social Security benefits. The opinion states that counsel had also been awarded $7,461.56 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law allowing certain fee awards against the government.

Court’s Ruling

The court granted attorney fees in the net amount of $20,072.50, representing 25% of the plaintiff’s retroactive benefits. Because counsel received fees under both § 406(b) and the Equal Access to Justice Act, the court directed counsel to reimburse the plaintiff for the previously received Equal Access to Justice Act fees. The court also directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 32, the docket entry associated with the fee motion.

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.