With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (See R. 80-83, 106, 151.) The ALJ determined that this environmental restriction did not significantly “narrow the range of work [plaintiff] is capable of performing.” (R. 22.) The ALJ applied the grid to reach a finding that the plaintiff was not disabled at any time prior to the date of decision. (See R. 22.) The court concludes that the ALJ properly relied on the grid to reach a finding that plaintiff was not disabled. See Pickering v. Chater, 951 F.Supp. 418, 427-28 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (court held that plaintiffs asthma did not prevent exclusive reliance on the grid where plaintiffs medical reports were normal and only restriction on plaintiffs ability to work was avoidance of pulmonary irritants); Crean v. Sullivan, No. 91 Civ. 7038(PKL), 1992 WL 183421, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 1992) (<HOLDING>). The court concludes that the ALJ’s

A: holding that where alj does not discuss reasons for deciding claimant is not disabled at step three or even identify relevant listings and only summarily concludes claimants impairments did not meet or equal listing meaningful judicial review of conclusion is impossible
B: holding that application of the grids is inappropriate if a claimant suffers from nonexertional impairments which diminish his or her ability to perform a full range of work
C: holding that where notice was deficient in administrative forfeiture proceedings proper remedy was to grant claimant right to a hearing
D: holding reliance on the grid proper where claimants nonexertional impairments limited right shoulder range of motion and partial hearing loss did not significantly compromise range of work for which claimant was otherwise qualified
D.