govinfo:USCOURTS-nynd-3_25-cv-01097-1

- 1 - 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
_____________________________________ 
 
KYLE L., 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 -v- 3:2 5-CV-1097 (AJB/MJK) 
 
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 
 
 Defendant. 
_____________________________________ 
 
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge: 
 
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 
 
On August 15, 2025, plaintiff Kyle L.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this action seeking review of the 
final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his appli-
cation for benefits under the Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 1. Along with his complaint, plaintiff 
moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 2. 
The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz for a Report & Recom-
mendation (“R&R”). See Dkt. No. 7. Judge Katz granted plaintiff’s IFP Application, Dkt. No. 9, 
the Commissioner filed a certified copy of the Administrative Record, Dkt. No. 11, and the parties 
briefed the matter in accordance with General Order 18, which provides that a n appeal from the 
Commissioner’s denial of benefits will be treated as if the parties have cross-moved for judgment 
on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dkt. Nos. 12, 15, 16. 
 
1 On May 1, 2018, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management issued a 
memorandum that encouraged courts to better protect the privacy of non- governmental parties in Social Security 
matters by using only the first name and last initial of the claimant in published opinions. 
 

- 2 - 
 
 On May 11, 2026, Judge Katz a dvised by R&R that: (1) plaintiff’s motion should be 
granted; (2) the Commissioner’s motion should be denied; (3) the Commissioner’s final decision 
should be vacated; and (4) this matter remanded for further administrative proceedings. See Dkt. 
No. 17. 
 The Commissioner has lodged objections. Dkt. No. 18. Briefly stated, the Commissioner 
argues that the R&R failed to accord appropriate deference to the ALJ’s factual determinations 
and instead reweighed the evidence to find greater limitations than the ALJ had assessed. Id . In 
response, plaintiff argues that deferential standard of review that applies to fact -finding does not 
shield an ALJ’s inadequately explained conclusion from meaningful judicial review. Dkt. No. 19. 
As relevant here, plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to adequately explain how plaintiff retained 
the RFC to perform “light work.” See id. 
 Upon de novo review, Judge Katz’s R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See FED. R. 
CIV. P. 72(b). 
Therefore, it is 
ORDERED that 
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is ACCEPTED; 
2. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED; 
3. The Commissioner’s motion is DENIED; 
4. The Commissioner’s final decision is VACATED; and 
5. This matter is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for fur-
ther administrative proceedings consistent with this Order and the R&R. 
 

- 3 - 
 
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
Dated: June 3, 2026 
 Utica, New York. 

Passage view · GavelSight