Thus, although an ALJ should provide a detailed explanation for his decision as to why the plaintiff did not satisfy the Listed Impairment, the Court may look to other portions of the opinion for support for the otherwise deficient conclusion. See id.; see also Garcia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:17-CV-02715, 2019 WL 1385222, *14 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2019) (holding that while "the ALJ should have provided a more detailed explanation for her decision that plaintiff did not" satisfy the listing impairment, the ALJ's conclusion should be upheld as it was not unfathomable based on the rest of the opinion). While the ALJ is not required to list every piece of evidence examined, the ALJ must present enough evidence to allow the court to engage in a meaningful review.

Thus, in "exclusively relying on" and, in fact, adopting Dr. Cruz's medical source statement, the ALJ "clearly erred." Bradley v. Colvin, 110 F. Supp. 3d 429, 444 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Vargas, 898 F.2d at 295; Fernandez, 2013 WL 1291284, at *16; Roman v. Astrue, No. 10-CV-3085, 2012 WL 4566128, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2012)); Garcia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-02715, 2019 WL 1385222, at *20 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2019) ("The Second Circuit has indicated that, by extension of the treating physician rule, ALJs should not rely heavily on findings by consultative examiners or non-examining doctors.").