DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00067.png
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page18 of 77
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986), and Meiri v. Dacon, 759 F.2d 989, 998
(2d Cir. 1985)). Where summary judgment is sought under Article I, Section 8, of the New York
Constitution, the New York Court of Appeals has declared, “we reaffirm our regard for the
particular value of summary judgment, where appropriate, in libel cases,” Immuno AG v. Moor-
Jankowski, 567 N.E.2d 1270, 1282 (N.Y. 1991), particularly when as here a defendant is
challenging a defamation claim under the “independent State law approach” articulated in
Immuno AG that might make summary disposition more likely than under a federal approach, see
id.
Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The
relevant inquiry on application for summary judgment is “whether the evidence presents a
sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52
(1986).
“[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat
an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be
no genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 247-48. The substantive law determines what facts are
material. /d. at 248. “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are
irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” /d. A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if
the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Jd.
In the face of a properly supported summary judgment motion, the plaintiff may not “rest
on [the] allegations” in her complaint. /d. at 249. The trial court’s function is to determine
11
Extracted Information
Dates
Document Details
| Filename | DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00067.png |
| File Size | 303.1 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 94.9% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 2,042 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-04 12:22:23.509523 |