06-3612-cv

Sterngass v. Town of Woodbury

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER

JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH

PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX

OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: "(SUMMARY ORDER)." A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A

COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY

PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE

WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT

HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.G OV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH

A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE

IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on

the 17th day of October, two thousand and seven.

PRESENT:

HON. JON O. NEWMAN,

HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR,

HON. RICHARD C. WESLEY,

Circuit Judges.

Rubin Sterngass,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

-v.-

No. 06-3612-cv

Town of Woodbury, Sheila H. Conroy,

Defendants-Appellees.

RUBIN STERNGASS, pro se, Valley Cottage, NY

For Plaintiff-Appellant:

For Defendants-Appellees: RICHARD LIBERTH (David W. Silverman, Granik

Silverman & Hekker, New York, New York, on the brief)

Tarshis, Catania, Liberth, Mahon & Milligram, PLLC, Newburgh, NY UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, of this appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Rubin Sterngass, pro se, appeals from a May 23, 2006 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (McMahon, J.) granting summary judgment to Appellees, and dismissing all Appellant's claims in his complaint. We presume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case, and the arguments on appeal.

This Court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. New York v. Nat'l Serv. Indus. Inc., 460 F.3d 201, 206 (2d Cir. 2006). "[S]ummary judgment is appropriate where there exists no genuine issue of material fact and, based on the undisputed facts, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." D'Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, we must resolve all ambiguities, and draw all inferences, against the moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); Donahue v. Windsor Locks Bd. of Fire Comm'rs, 834 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1987). Mere speculation and conjecture are insufficient to avoid summary judgment. Western World Ins. Co. v. Stack Oil Inc., 922 F.2d 118, 121 (2d Cir. 1990).

Having reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Appellant misapprehends the law. For the reasons stated by the district court, we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a trial on Appellant's claims, and such claims are without merit. Therefore, we hold that Appellant's claims were properly dismissed.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk By: