Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 11, 2020

Nunez v. Berryhill

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:18-cv-06385
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Nunez v. Commissioner, Judge Gorenstein granted counsel’s $20,063.25 fee application and ordered repayment of earlier fees to Nunez.

Who this affects

Evelyn Del Carmen Nunez, her counsel, and Charles E. Binder as the fee recipient identified in the order.

What happened

Evelyn Del Carmen Nunez applied for attorney’s fees after receiving past-due Social Security benefits. The order says the fee application was unopposed and relied on a prior Southern District of New York decision.

The court awarded $20,063.25, equal to 25% of Nunez’s past-due benefits, to Charles E. Binder, the fee recipient identified in the order.

The order also directed counsel to return $4,638.06 in previously awarded Equal Access to Justice Act fees to Nunez. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order on September 11, 2020.

The detailed version

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

Case
Nunez v. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-06385
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Sept. 11, 2020

Background

The order addresses an application for attorney’s fees filed at Docket No. 25. It states that the application was granted without objection and gives the reasons stated in Rabenda v. Colvin, 2018 WL 3178159, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2018).

Ruling

The court ordered that $20,063.25 in attorney’s fees be paid to Charles E. Binder. The order states that this amount represents 25% of the past-due benefits awarded to Evelyn Del Carmen Nunez. It further directed counsel for Nunez to remit $4,638.06 in previously awarded Equal Access to Justice Act fees to Nunez after receiving the new fee award. United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein signed the order.

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.