Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 17, 2026

Cuddy Law Firm, P.L.L.C. v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:25-cv-08515
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Cuddy Law Firm v. New York City Department of Education: Judge Furman adopted a recommendation granting and denying in part the firm’s fee motion and closed the case.

Who this affects

Cuddy Law Firm, P.L.L.C. and the New York City Department of Education; the order resolves the firm’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs and closes the case.

What happened

Cuddy Law Firm, P.L.L.C. sued the New York City Department of Education to recover attorneys’ fees and costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ricardo for a recommendation.

The magistrate judge recommended that the firm’s motion for attorneys’ fees be granted and denied in part. Neither party objected or requested more time, so the court found that they had waived their right to object and adopted the recommendation in its entirety. The clerk was directed to close the case.

Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the order on July 17, 2026.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cuddy Law Firm, P.L.L.C. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:25-cv-08515
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
July 17, 2026

Background

Cuddy Law Firm, P.L.L.C. brought an action seeking attorneys’ fees and costs under the fee-shifting provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ricardo, who issued a Report and Recommendation on July 2, 2026.

Recommendation and Review

The Report and Recommendation recommended that Cuddy Law Firm’s motion for attorneys’ fees be granted and denied in part. The magistrate judge gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. The report also referred the parties to the applicable federal rule and statute.

No objections or requests for an extension were filed. Judge Furman therefore held that the parties waived their right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review. Even so, he reviewed the petition and the Report and Recommendation and found it well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The clerk was directed to terminate the listed docket entry and close the case.

Scope of the Order

The opinion states that the fee motion was recommended to be “granted and denied in part,” but it does not identify in this order which portions were granted or denied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.