In December 2018, Plaintiff Marc Fishman voluntarily presented himself to the New Rochelle Police Department to make a complaint about a perceived violation of his court ordered supervision with his children.
The moving party bears the initial burden of pointing to evidence in the record, including depositions, documents, affidavits, or declarations “which it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
A genuine dispute of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; accord Gen. Star Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Universal Fabricators, Inc., 585 F.3d 662, 669 (2d Cir. 2009); Roe v. City of Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 2008); Benn v. Kissane, 510 F. App'x 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2013).
Consequently, the record plainly establishes that Plaintiff suffers mental impairments which significantly impact major life-activities, namely his ability to hear, speak and learn.
By extension, Plaintiff reasons that he would not have been subject to the following: he would not have been “convicted of crimes he was actually innocent of,” he would not have had to expend “over $50,000 to defend the criminal case and to hire a disability advocate,” and he would not have lost “$150,000 in income as a result of the 10-month suspension of his real estate broker’s license.” (Pltf’s Rule 56.1 ¶¶ 36-40.)