Leeber Realty LLC v. Trustco Bank
Decision Date | 01 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 17–CV–2934 (KMK),17–CV–2934 (KMK) |
Citation | 316 F.Supp.3d 594 |
Parties | LEEBER REALTY LLC and Bernard Cohen, both individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the Bernard Cohen Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs, v. TRUSTCO BANK, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Michael A. Freeman, Esq., Greenberg Freeman, LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Plaintiffs
Adam K. Kurland, Esq., Fenster & Kurland LLP, New City, NY, Counsel for Defendant
Plaintiffs Leeber Realty LLC ("Leeber") and Bernard Cohen ("Cohen" and collectively, "Plaintiffs") brought this Action against Trustco Bank ("Defendant"), alleging that Defendant breached a commercial lease contract. Defendant counterclaimed that Plaintiffs breached the contract by failing to make necessary repairs and that Defendant was constructively evicted. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, fees and costs, and dismissal of the counterclaims. (Notice of Mot. (Dkt. No. 53).) For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Local Civil Rule 56.1(a) requires the moving party to submit a "short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried." The nonmoving party, in turn, must submit "a correspondingly numbered paragraph responding to each numbered paragraph in the statement of the moving party, and if necessary, additional paragraphs containing a separate, short[,] and concise statement of additional material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried." Local Civ. R. 56.1(b). "If the opposing party ... fails to controvert a fact set forth in the movant's Rule 56.1 statement, that fact will be deemed admitted pursuant to the local rule." Baity v. Kralik , 51 F.Supp.3d 414, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) ); see also T.Y. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. , 584 F.3d 412, 418 (2d Cir. 2009) (same). "The purpose of Local Rule 56.1 is to streamline the consideration of summary judgment motions by freeing district courts from the need to hunt through voluminous records without guidance from the parties." Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co. , 258 F.3d 62, 74 (2d Cir. 2001).
Here, Plaintiffs filed and served their statement pursuant to Rule 56.1, () , and Defendant filed a response, (Def.'s Rule 56.1 Statement ("Def.'s 56.1") (Dkt. No. 59) ). However, Defendant's response for the most part does not comply with Rule 56.1. Of the 85 separately numbered paragraphs in Plaintiffs' 56.1 statement, , Defendant conceded that 62 of them are "[u]ncontested," (Def.'s 56.1). Of the remaining 23 paragraphs, Defendant (1) failed to answer one of them, (Def.'s 56.1 ¶ 48); (2) stated that it lacked sufficient information to respond to three of them, (id. ¶¶ 81, 82, 83); (3) asserted an "objection" on legal grounds to nine of them, (id. ¶¶ 43, 50, 51, 61, 71, 75, 80, 84, 85); and (4) "contested" 10 of them, (id. ¶¶ 3, 25, 32, 35, 38, 41, 55, 64, 73, 74).
"[T]he Court has afforded no weight to any legal argument" in Plaintiff's 56.1 Statement. Greene v. City of New York , No. 08-CV-243, 2017 WL 1030707, at *1 n.3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2017). However, the purported legal objections Defendant raises are without merit, (Def.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 43, 50, 51 ( ); id. at ¶¶ 61, 71, 75, 80, 84, 85 ( ); see also id. ¶ 3 ( ); id. ¶¶ 73–74 ( ) ), and, in any event, do not actually respond to or dispute the specific facts, supported by citations to admissible record evidence, alleged in the relevant paragraphs. See Baity , 51 F.Supp.3d at 418 (). Similarly, Defendant has failed to actually dispute the purported material facts in the paragraphs it has "contested" in Plaintiffs' 56.1 statement. Instead, in all but two of the remaining "contested" paragraphs, Defendant contends that the evidence Plaintiffs cite does not support the asserted factual statements. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 25, 32, 35, 38, 41, 55.) The Court has independently reviewed the cited portions of the record to make sure they support Plaintiffs' factual assertions. See Baity , 51 F.Supp.3d at 421 . But, provided they are supported by the record, Defendant's failure to actually dispute the factual material in these identified paragraphs, let alone provide record citations in attempting to dispute them, permits the Court to find them undisputed. See Holtz , 258 F.3d at 73 ( ); Baity , 51 F.Supp.3d at 418 ; id. at 419 ().
Defendant does cite the record—specifically, an affirmation from Defendant's counsel, Adam K. Kurland—in two of the "contested" paragraphs. (Def.'s 56.1 ¶¶ 3, 64 ( ).) This affirmation describes the contents of a telephone conversation he had with Christopher Wirth, a potential witness identified during discovery, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, who was never deposed, has not submitted an affidavit or declaration and indeed has not responded to Kurland's attempts to contact him regarding a proposed affidavit Kurland drafted on Wirth's behalf, (Kurland Aff. ¶¶ 5–7). Therefore, this affirmation contains inadmissible hearsay statements, and the Court will not consider it in deciding the instant Motion. See Union Ins. Soc. of Canton, Ltd. v. William Gluckin & Co. , 353 F.2d 946, 952 (2d Cir. 1965) ( ); Cavanagh v. Ford Motor Co. , No. 13-CV-4584, 2017 WL 2805057, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2017) (), adopted , 2017 WL 2804934 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2017) ; Baity , 51 F.Supp.3d at 419 ( ); see also Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) (defining hearsay); Fed. R. Evid. 802 ( ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) ( ).
Furthermore, despite failing to identify additional material and disputed facts in its 56.1 statement, Defendant cites additional evidence in its memorandum opposing the Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Def.'s Mem.) This evidence includes, among other things, sworn affidavits from Robert Leonard ("Leonard"), Defendant's Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer, and Joseph Marley ("Marley"), Defendant's Officer of Purchasing, Mail Services and Security. (Def.'s Mem. 2–4, 9 (citing id. Ex. 2 ("Leonard Aff."); id. Ex. 3 ("Marley Aff.") ).) Both of these affidavits include inadmissible evidence. Leonard's affidavit parrots Defendant's counterclaims verbatim, as does Defendant's memorandum. (Compare Leonard Aff. ¶¶ 3–10 with Am. Answer 4 ¶¶ 1–8 and Def.'s Mem. 2–4.) Additionally, Leonard asserts, without identifying the basis of his knowledge, that "[a]s a result of the conditions at the Premises, Defendant was deprived of its ability to conduct banking operations at the Premises in a continuous manner." (Leonard Aff. ¶ 11.) Such a conclusory assertion is inadmissible in opposition to a summary judgment motion. See Amnesty Am. v. Town of W. Hartford , 361 F.3d 113, 131 n. 12 (2d Cir. 2004) ( ); Wyler v. United States , 725 F.2d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 1983) (); Baity , 51 F.Supp.3d at 419 (). Similarly, Leonard avers that "it became clear that it would not be possible to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Khodeir v. Sayyed
...Real Estate Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 77, 83, 308 N.Y.S.2d 649, 256 N.E.2d 707 (1970) (citations omitted); accord Leeber Realty LLC v. Trustco Bank, 316 F.Supp.3d 594, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ; Eastside Exhibition Corp. v. 210 E. 86th St. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 617, 627, 942 N.Y.S.2d 19, 965 N.E.2d 246 (2012)......
-
Allen v. First Unum Life Ins. Co.
...agreement, (2) adequate performance by the plaintiff, (3) breach by the defendant, and (4) damages." Leeber Realty LLC v. Trustco Bank, 316 F.Supp.3d 594, 609 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) . Dr. Allen correctly maintains that the disputes in this action focus on the elements of "performance of Plaintiff"......
-
Brands Within Reach, LLC v. Belvoir Fruit Farms Ltd.
... ... granted.” Cruden v. Bank of New York , 957 F.2d ... 961, 975 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting H.L ... loss. See, e.g. , Leeber Realty LLC v. Trustco ... Bank , 316 F.Supp.3d 594, 619 (S.D.N.Y ... ...
-
Rogers v. Fashion Inst. of Tech.
...in Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement, the Court "find[s] them undisputed" where supported by the record. Leeber Realty LLC v. Trustco Bank, 316 F. Supp. 3d 594, 600 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The Court also denies Rogers' recent attempt to reopen discovery, which has now been closed for well over a yea......