Leyderman v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-04126
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Leyderman v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Ramos transferred the disability-benefits case to the Eastern District of New York because venue was improper.
Fatima Leyderman’s action on behalf of G.Y.B., a minor child, was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York because the court found venue improper. The order also denied fee-free status for any appeal.
What happened
Leyderman v. Commissioner of Social Security concerns a request to review the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying an application for disability benefits for G.Y.B., a minor child.
The court said Social Security cases must be filed in the federal district where the plaintiff resides or has a principal place of business. Plaintiff alleged residence in Staten Island, or Richmond County, which is in the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York.
Judge Edgardo Ramos transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York under the federal venue statute. The court closed the case in the Southern District, directed that no summons issue there, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Leyderman v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-04126
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 25, 2022
Background
Fatima Leyderman brought this action on behalf of G.Y.B., a minor child, seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying an application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. The action was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and/or § 1383(c)(3).
Venue analysis
The court explained that these Social Security cases may be brought only in the federal district where the plaintiff resides or has a principal place of business, or, if the plaintiff resides outside any federal judicial district, in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff alleged residence in Staten Island, New York, or Richmond County. Because Richmond County is within the Eastern District of New York, and Plaintiff did not allege a principal place of business in the Southern District of New York, the court concluded that venue was improper there.
Ruling
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk was directed to transfer the action, and the court stated that a summons would not issue from the Southern District of New York. The order closed the case in that court. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The court did not decide whether the denial of disability benefits was legally correct.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.