The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CF LIL EE RD K
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
1:53 pm, Aug 08, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------X
JOSEPH T. TRICARICO, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM LONG ISLAND OFFICE
OF DECISION &
-against- ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 20-CV-6079(GRB)
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------X
GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:
In this appeal brought pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 et seq. (the
“Act”), plaintiff challenges final determinations by the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration that he was ineligible to receive Social Security disability insurance benefits. See
DE 1. Presently before the Court are the parties’ cross motions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c),
for judgment on the pleadings.
In its review, the Court has applied the frequently reiterated standards for entitlement to
Social Security disability benefits, review of a denial of such benefits, consideration of motions
for judgment on the pleadings, examination of the procedures employed, the substantial evidence
rule, deference accorded to ALJ decisions, and the evaluation of vocational evidence. These
standards, along with numerous authorities and citations, are discussed at length, merely by way
of example, in Zacharopoulos v. Saul, 516 F. Supp. 3d 211, 219 (E.D.N.Y. 2021), which
discussion is hereby incorporated by reference.
Here, the matter is extraordinarily straightforward. Plaintiff, a former (now retired)
government official, ended his career with the Town of Oyster Bay as a Deputy Commissioner
1
of Public Works. His purportedly disabling medical conditions consist of knee impairments –
including one knee that was replaced – aggravated by obesity. It is beyond dispute that his position
consisted of exclusively sedentary work, and the ALJ determined, quite reasonably, that plaintiff
retained the capacity to perform such work. While counsel argues that certain medical findings,
cobbled together, could suggest otherwise, that is not the question before this Court.
In considering the record as a whole, the ALJ’s opinion is amply supported by substantial
evidence. Zacharopoulos, 516 F. Supp. 3d at 220 (“[T]he findings of the Commissioner as to any
fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and therefore, the
relevant question is not whether substantial evidence supports plaintiff’s position, but whether
‘substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision.’”) (quoting Bonet ex rel. T.B. v. Colvin, 523 Fed.
App’x 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2013)). Thus, this Court must affirm the decision of the Commissioner.
Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner’s motion is granted, and the Plaintiff’s motion
is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
August 8, 2022
/s/ Gary R. Brown
GARY R. BROWN
United States District Judge
2