First, the evidence is undoubtedly new, as the letter contains a.diagnosis by Dr. Camille and CSW Lederman that was not before the ALJ: the categorical opinion that Richardson could not take on the responsibilities of a work situation due to her chronic depression. Second, on the question of whether the evidence was material to the relevant time period, "[a] post-determination diagnosis that indicates true disability prior to the ALJ determination is relevant — whether the diagnosis relates to a previously unrecognized condition, or whether it reveals the depth of an illness recognized, but not fully appreciated at the time of the hearing.” Bosmond v. Apfel, 1998 WL 851508, *12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.8, 1998) (Patterson, J.). Cf. Brown v. Chater, 932 F.Supp. 71, 75 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (Chin, J.) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the September 17 letter
holding that the mere application for other benefits is not fault holding that evidence based on new asthma attacks that occurred after alj hearing as immaterial to present application for benefits holding that a claimants failure to list an impairment either in her application for disability benefits or through her testimony disposes of the claim because the alj was under no obligation to investigate a claim not presented at the time of the application for benefits and not offered at the hearing as a basis for disability recognizing that the alj has an obligation to investigate a claim not presented in the application for benefits when testimony at the hearing places him on notice of the need for further inquiry holding that plaintiff must present such evidence