and on reconsideration. (T. 95-97). An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing in the case on February 20, 1996 (T. 29-77), and issued a decision dated April 22, 1996. (T. 16-20). The ALJ found that Jermaine was not eligible for SSI benefits. (T. 20). That determination became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied plaintiffs request for review on April 23, 1998. (T. 5-6). This action, commenced pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), to review the Commissioner’s determination followed. DISCUSSION A. The Standard of Review The first issue to be determined by this Court is whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard. Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770 (2d Cir.1999); see also Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 986 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); see also Townley v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 109,
holding that appellate court could not review the sufficiency of the evidence  based on a particular legal standard because that standard was not submitted to the jury and no party objected to the charge on this ground or requested that the jury be charged using this standard holding that appeal from a decision of the attorney general denying legal representation was before the appellate division as of right to review the final decision of a state officer holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict holding that the magistrate was correct in applying the knowing and voluntary standard in this instance holding that the court must first review the aljs decision for correct legal principles before applying the substantial evidence standard to uphold a finding of no disability