govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-5_25-cv-00045-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 
LAURA J.T., 
 
   Plaintiff, 
 
-against-       5:25- CV-45 (LEK/PJE) 
 
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,  
       
   Defendant. 
       
 
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
Plaintiff Laura J.T.1 (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 
1383(c)(3) seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security 
Administration (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Supplemental Security Income 
(“SSI”) for lack of a disability. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”).  
On July 15, 2025, Plaintiff moved to vacate the Commissioner’s judgement regarding her 
disability status. Dkt. No. 11 (“Motion”). On July 28, 2025, the Commissioner filed a motion in 
response, Dkt. No. 12 (“Cross Motion”), and Plaintiff replied on August 11, 2025. Dkt. No. 13 
(“Reply”).  
On February 24, 2026, the Honorable Judge Paul J. Evangelista issued a Report-
Recommendation and Order recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion, grant the 
 
1 In accordance with guidance from the Committee on Court Administration and Case 
Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which was adopted by the Northern 
District of New York in 2018 to better protect personal and medical information of non-
governmental parties, this Order will identify Plaintiff’s last name by initial only. 
Case 5:25-cv-00045-LEK-PJE     Document 18     Filed 03/31/26     Page 1 of 5
2 
Commissioner’s Cross-Motion, and affirm the Social Security Administrations’ decision. See 
Dkt. No. 14 (“Report and Recommendation”).   
Plaintiff filed objections, Dkt. No. 15, and amended objections, Dkt. No. 17 (“Amended 
Objections”). For the purposes of this Order, the Court will treat the Amended Objections as the 
operative document.  
 For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its 
entirety.  
II. BACKGROUND 
The Court assumes familiarity with Judge Evangelista’s Report and Recommendations, 
as well as Plaintiff’s factual allegations as detailed therein. See R. & R. at 2–8.  
III. LEGAL STANDARD 
“Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28 United States Code Section 
636 govern the review of decisions rendered by Magistrate Judges.” A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. 
Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 191 F. Supp. 2d 404, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636; 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Review of decisions rendered by magistrate judges are also governed by the 
Local Rules. See L.R. 72.1. 28 U.S.C. § 636 states: 
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the 
Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation], any party may 
serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and 
recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court 
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 
objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or 
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 
by t he magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further 
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with 
instructions. 
 
Case 5:25-cv-00045-LEK-PJE     Document 18     Filed 03/31/26     Page 2 of 5
3 
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When written objections are filed and the district court 
conducts a de novo review, that “de novo determination does not require the Court to conduct a 
new hearing; rather, it mandates that the Court give fresh consideration to those issues to which 
specific objections have been made.” A.V. by Versace Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d at 406 (emphasis in 
original).  
“The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no 
timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the 
record.” DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “When a party 
makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments, the 
Court will review the [report and recommendation] strictly for clear error.” New York City Dist. 
Of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Forde, 341 F. Supp. 3d 334, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting 
Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). 
IV. DISCUSSION  
As Plaintiff has filed specific objections, the Court will review the issues identified by 
Plaintiff in the Report and Recommendation, de novo. See A.V. by Versace Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d 
at 406.  
Plaintiff’s objection is that Judge Evangelista erred when he found that the 
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) had not committed error in crafting a “light level RFC.” Am. 
Obj. at 3. Her argument supporting the objection is that she met her burden in “demonstrat[ing] 
evidence which shows greater restrictions and limitations related to a unique severe impairment 
of POTS syndrome.” Id. The Court disagrees with Plaintiff for the reasons stated below.  
“In reviewing a final decision of the Commissioner, a district Court may not determine de 
novo whether an individual is disabled.” Joseph J. B. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:23-CV-652 
Case 5:25-cv-00045-LEK-PJE     Document 18     Filed 03/31/26     Page 3 of 5
4 
(BKS/CFH), 2024 WL 4217371, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2024) (italics added), report and 
recommendation adopted, No. 1:23-CV-652 (BKS/CFH), 2024 WL 4216048 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 
17, 2024). “Rather, the Commissioner’s determination will only be reversed if the correct legal 
standards were not applied, or it was not supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (citing Johnson 
v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 985–86 (2d Cir. 1987)). The substantial evidence standard is not 
demanding, it can be met with “more than a mere scintilla” of evidence, where such “relevant 
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” exists. 
Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curium) (quoting Richardson v. 
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, (1971)). “[I]f the correct legal standards were applied and the ALJs 
finding is supported by substantial evidence, such finding must be sustained ‘even where 
substantial evidence may support the plaintiff’s position and despite that the court’s independent 
analysis of the evidence may differ from the [Commissioner’s].” Joseph J. B., 2024 WL 
4217371, at *1 (quoting Rosado v. Sullivan, 805 F. Supp. 147, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)).  
Here, as Judge Evangelista recognized in his thoughtful and well-reasoned Report and 
Recommendation, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff had a light RFC was supported by 
substantial evidence. See R. & R. at 11–16. In making the RFC determination, the ALJ relied on: 
prior administrative medical findings, which included testimony from multiple physicians, the 
results of multiple medical tests involving the severity of her condition, as well as Plaintiff’s 
subjective symptoms.  See R. & R. at 14–15.  
Upon reviewing the Report and Recommendation, and the parties’ Motions the Court 
finds that the ALJs RFC findings meets the deferential substantial evidence standard.  
As, “[i]t is not the Courts function to reweigh, the evidence on appeal, only to ‘decide 
whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision’”, the Court dismisses the objections 
Case 5:25-cv-00045-LEK-PJE     Document 18     Filed 03/31/26     Page 4 of 5
5 
and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. See Tina W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 
No. 5:22-CV-15 (MAD), 2023 WL 157952, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan 10, 2023) (quoting Bonet ex rel. 
T.B. v. Colvin, 523 F. App’x 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order)).  
 
V. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, it is hereby: 
ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 13, is APPROVED and 
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further  
ORDERED, that this action is DISMISSED; and it is further  
 ORDERED, that the Clerk close this action; and it is further 
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all 
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.  
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
DATED: March 31, 2026 
 Albany, New York 
            
      LAWRENCE E. KAHN 
     United States District Judge 
 
 
Case 5:25-cv-00045-LEK-PJE     Document 18     Filed 03/31/26     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight