91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), (e)). In assessing the record to determine whether any such issues of material fact exist, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Chambers, 43 F.3d at 36 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)) (other citations omitted). Where the non-movant either does not respond to the motion or fails to dispute the movant’s statement of material facts, the court may not rely solely on the moving party’s Rule 56. 1 statement; rather, the court must be satisfied that the citations to evidence in the record support the movant’s assertions. See Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139, 143 n. 5 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides
holding that the court had an adequate record to grant the defendants motion for summary judgment because the relevant evidence would have been in plaintiffs possession holding that cjredibility determinations the weighing of the evidence and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are  not functions of a judge  ruling on a motion for summary judgment   holding that this court does not entertain arguments made for the first time on appeal as the case must be decided on the facts contained in the record and not on assertions in the brief holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that not verifying in the record the assertions in the motion for summary judgment would derogate the truthfinding functions of the judicial process by substituting convenience for facts