From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quattlander v. Ray

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 29, 2021
18 CIVIL 3229 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2021)

Opinion

18 CIVIL 3229 (CS)

10-29-2021

VERA-LYNN QUATTLANDER, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM RAY, II, Defendant.


JUDGMENT

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.


Summaries of

Quattlander v. Ray

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 29, 2021
18 CIVIL 3229 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2021)
Case details for

Quattlander v. Ray

Case Details

Full title:VERA-LYNN QUATTLANDER, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM RAY, II, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 29, 2021

Citations

18 CIVIL 3229 (CS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2021)