Case ID: f-appx_562/html/0012-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael G. ROBINSON, Michelle Robinson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. H & R BLOCK BANK, FSB, Sand Canyon Corporation, fka Option One Mortgage Corporation, Melissa Hively, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-2517-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 11, 2014.
    Michael G. Robinson & Michelle Robinson, pro se, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Steven Gerber, Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants Appellee H & R Block Bank, FSB.
    Michael J. Siris, Solomon & Siris, P.C., Garden City, NY, for Defendants-Appel-lees Sand Canyon Corporation, fka Option One Mortgage Corporation, & Melissa Hively.
    PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, DENNIS JACOBS and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Michael and Michelle Robinson, pro se, appeal from a judgment dismissing their fraud and unjust enrichment claims and request for declaratory relief in connection with a mortgage on their property. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that, the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 148 (2d Cir.2004). “In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). However, reliance upon conelusory statements or mere allegations is insufficient to resist summary judgment. See Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522, 532-33 (2d Cir.1993). After an independent review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its May 29, 2013 order.

We have considered all of the Robinsons’ arguments and conclude that they are without merit. The judgment of the district court is hereby affirmed.