On Monday, Judge Karas granted in part and denied in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment of a Section 1983 claim by Santander against the City of Yonkers, relating to the impounding and subsequent sale of a vehicle on which Santander held a lien. In a footnote, the court noted that defendants failed to submit a 56.1 statement in support of their motion for summary judgment and that their 56.1 counterstatement had numerous deficiencies. The court declined to deny summary judgment on these grounds, but broadly discredited defendants’ denials and cautioned the parties against ignoring compliance with local rules.
Addressing deficiencies in defendants’ 56.1 counterstatement, the court deemed plaintiffs’ 56.1 statements admitted, so far as they were supported by record evidence, where defendants (1) stated denials without citing any admissible evidence in support, (2) attempted to restrict admissions to “the limited purpose of this dispositive motion” but deny the fact generally, and (3) “miss[ed] the mark” by stating off-topic denials that did not actually controvert plaintiffs’ statements.
The court further noted defendants’ procedural deficiencies: they failed “to comply with the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice § II.D, which requires that the opposing party must reproduce each entry in the moving party’s Rule 56.1 Statement and set out the opposing party’s response directly beneath it.”
The court cautioned the defendants:
Courts regularly deny summary judgment where a movant fails to comply with Rule 56.1, including when the movant fails to submit a 56.1 Statement. However, the Court has broad discretion to determine whether to overlook a party’s failure to comply with local court rules. The Court will exercise its discretion here and overlook [defendants’] repeated deficiencies. The Court cautions [defendants], however, that compliance with local rules and individual rules of practice is not a matter to be taken lightly or ignored and that any future transgressions may be met with sanctions.