Quattlander v. Ray, III

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VERALYNNQUATILANDER, Plaintiff, 18 CIVIL 3229 (CS) -against- JUDGMENT WILLIAM RAY, II, Defendant. wane eee KX It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 29, 2021, “Under Celotex, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by showing .. . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Because defendant has done so here,” Tingling v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., No. 02-CV-4196, 2003 WL 22973452, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2003) (cleaned up), and Plaintiff has not in response presented admissible evidence raising genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment is GRANTED. Dated: New York, New York October 29, 2021

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of BY: D Def ty Clerk