Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MONIQUE L.,
Plaintiff, 	5:25-CV-0167 (GTS/MJK)
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
HILLER COMERFORD INJURY & 	JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
DISABILITY LAW 	MARY ELLEN GILL, ESQ.
Counsel for Plaintiff
6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1a
Amherst, New York 14226
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	HUGH DUN RAPPAPORT, ESQ.
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Counsel for Defendant
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
The above matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, filed on January 15, 2026, recommending that
(1) the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, (2) Plaintiff’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings be granted, and (3) the Commissioner’s decision denying
disability benefits be reversed and the decision be remanded for further proceedings pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Dkt. No. 19.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation
Case 5:25-cv-00167-GTS-MJK Document 21 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3

have not been filed and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’
thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report-
Recommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper legal standards, accurately
recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 19.) As a result, the
Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Plaintiff’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings is granted, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied, and the
Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 17)
is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. Nos. 13) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits is
REVERSED and REMANDED.
1 	When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear-error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear-error review, “the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995)
(Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which
no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
2
Case 5:25-cv-00167-GTS-MJK Document 21 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3

Dated: 	February 27, 2026
Syracuse, New York
3
Case 5:25-cv-00167-GTS-MJK Document 21 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3