Daley v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:20-cv-10151
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Daley v. Commissioner, Judge Gorenstein partly granted and partly denied both sides’ motions before remanding the Social Security case.
Angella Daley and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was remanded to the Commissioner for further action.
What happened
Angella Daley’s case against the Commissioner of Social Security involved competing requests for judgment based on the court record.
The court partly granted and partly denied both the Commissioner’s motion and Daley’s cross-motion. It remanded the case to the Commissioner for the purposes stated in the court’s order and closed the case.
Judge Gorenstein’s ruling relied on reasons stated during the July 15, 2022 hearing and in an earlier order; the judgment provided no further details about those reasons.
The detailed version
- Daley v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-10151
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- July 18, 2022
Background
The judgment concerns Daley’s appeal involving the Commissioner of Social Security. It states that the principles governing review of Social Security appeals are set forth in Aguirre v. Saul, 568 F. Supp. 3d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). The judgment does not describe the underlying Social Security issues or the specific reasons for the parties’ positions.
Motions and Ruling
The Commissioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings and record. Daley filed a cross-motion for the same type of judgment. The Commissioner’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. Daley’s cross-motion was also granted in part and denied in part.
The court stated that the reasons for its decision were given in its July 15, 2022 order and on the record after oral argument held that day. Those materials are not included in the provided judgment, so the judgment alone does not identify which issues each party won.
Disposition
The case was remanded to the Commissioner for the purposes stated in the court’s order. The judgment says that, because of the remand, the case was closed. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein is identified in the supplied case information; the judgment itself is entered by the court clerk.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.