Opinion ID: 2788682
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: This Court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo, “viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non‐moving party.” Dillon v. Morano, 497 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 2007). For a court to grant summary judgment, the movant must “show[ ] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). While it is true that a court is “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the” nonmovant, Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Leasing Ass’n., 182 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted), a plaintiff may not survive summary judgment merely by conjuring a hypothetical issue of material fact. “Where the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the opposing party must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a 2 Robinson Br. 14 n.1 (ʺThe plaintiff does not appeal from the district courtʹs judgment on her FMLA claim to the extent it relies on the plaintiff failing to prove a violation of the federal FMLAʺ). See id. at 10‐11. 4 No. 14‐941‐cv genuine dispute of material fact. More specifically, it must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, and may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation.” Brown v. Eli Lilly & Co., 654 F.3d 347, 358 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).