Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 27, 2024

Sureil v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Andrew Krause
Docket
7:23-cv-04479
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social Security
In one sentence

In Sureil v. Commissioner, Judge Krause reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the Social Security case for a hearing and new decision.

Who this affects

Maritza Altagra Sureil and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the Commissioner for a hearing opportunity and a new decision.

What happened

Sureil v. Commissioner of Social Security involved a challenge to the Commissioner’s decision in a Social Security case. The opinion does not explain the underlying benefits dispute.

The court ordered that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and that the case be sent back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, including an opportunity for a hearing and a new decision.

Judge Andrew Krause’s judgment stated that the remand was made under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), based on the parties’ February 27, 2024 stipulation and order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sureil v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:23-cv-04479
Judge
Andrew Krause
Date
Feb. 27, 2024

Background

Maritza Altagra Sureil brought this Social Security action against the Commissioner of Social Security. The judgment does not describe the underlying claim or the reasons for the Commissioner’s original decision.

Court’s Action

The judgment states that, for the reasons given in a stipulation and order dated February 27, 2024, the Commissioner’s decision was reversed. The action was remanded to the Commissioner under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings, including an opportunity for a hearing and a new decision.

Result

Judge Andrew Krause’s judgment therefore reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for additional administrative proceedings. The opinion does not state what the new decision must be.

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.