The opinion
Based upon the text of Plaintiff's submission, it appears
Plaintiff intended to file a motion for summary judgment.
Such a motion is typically made at the close of discovery. ISTRICT COURT
EO a OF NEW YORK
and 4(E) of this Court's Individual Practices.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate
the motion sequence pending at Doc. 88. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SO ORDERED. SUPPLEMENTAL ADJUDICTION
Gon 19-CV-4642-(LLS)
Philip Halpern
United States District Judge
Dated: White Plains, New York
March 31, 2021 COURT:
NOTICE OF MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed affirmation of Plaintiff dated
April _, 2021 the accompanying Memorandum of Law, and all pleadings and
proceedings heretofore had herein, Plaintiff Daly will move this Court for an Order
granting Plaintiff's Summary Adjudication pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), together with
such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
The court’s duty under Rule 56(d) is to narrow the scope of the pending trial.
“Rule 56(d) does not authorize the entry of a judgment on part of a claim or the granting
of partial relief, however. It simply empowers the court to withdraw sham issues from the
case and to specify those facts that really cannot be controverted.” Wright & Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2737 (footnotes omitted). In this way, Rule 56(d) has
been compared to a pretrial order under Rule 16. /d.
A “party against whom a claim... is asserted... may at any time, move with or
without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in the party’s favor as to all or any
part thereof.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). A court must grant summary judgment if the
pleadings and supporting documents, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
[emphasis added] An issue as to any material fact is only “genuine” if the evidence
regarding the disputed fact is “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “The mere
existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-movant’s] position will be
insufficient [to preclude summary judgment]; there must be evidence on which the jury
could reasonably find for the [non-movant].” /d.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 2241(b) and the
Uniform Rules of the Trial Courts of the State of New York § 202.8(c), answering
affidavits, if any, are to be served upon the undersigned at least seven (7) days prior to
the return date of this Motion.
Dated: ,
Dante E. Daly, Pro Se