Case Name: Teresa ZERILLI-EDELGLASS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-19
Citations: 353 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 07-3726-cv
Parties: Teresa ZERILLI-EDELGLASS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 353
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
Teresa ZERILLI-EDELGLASS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-3726-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 19, 2009.
Teresa Zerilli-Edelglass, Jackson, NJ, pro se.
Richard Schoolman and Gena Usenheimer, Office of the General Counsel, New York City Transit Authority, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellees.
PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-appellant Teresa Zerilli-Edel-glass, pro se, appeals from an August 2, 2007, 2007 WL 2261652, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered after the District Court granted summary judgment to defendants-appellees. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues raised on appeal.
We review the granting of a motion for summary judgment de novo and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). 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." Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
After reviewing the record and considering the issues raised on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment for defendants-appellees was appropriate for substantially the reasons set forth in the District Court's thorough opinion. Accordingly, the August 2, 2007 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.