Gilli Pellizzeri v. O'Malley, No. 5:2023cv00502 - Document 19 (N.D.N.Y 2024)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 16 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for judg ment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 17 ) is GRANTED. Defendant's decision denying disability benefits is REVERSED. This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by U.S. District Judge Glenn T Suddaby on 5/6/2024. (sal)

Download PDF
Gilli Pellizzeri v. O'Malley Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________ PAIGE P., Plaintiff, 5:23-CV-0502 (GTS/DJS) v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. _______________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER, PLLC Counsel for Plaintiff 6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1A Amherst, New York 14226 JUSTIN M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF PROGRAM COUNSEL, OFFICE 2 Counsel for Defendant 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 HEETANO SHAMSOONDAR, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER The above-captioned matter comes to this Court following a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Daniel J. Stewart, filed on March 18, 2024, recommending that (1) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, (2) Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, (3) Defendant’s decision denying disability benefits be reversed, and (4) the case be remanded to Defendant for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Dkt. No. 18.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) Dockets.Justia.com After carefully reviewing all of the papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Stewart’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Stewart employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 18.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 16) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s decision denying disability benefits is REVERSED; and it is further ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 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 Dated: May 6, 2024 Syracuse, New York 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.