the motion without first examining the moving party’s submission to determine if it has met its burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact remains for trial[,]” Amaker v. Foley, 274 F.3d 677, 681 (2d Cir.2001), and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, see Champion v. Artuz, 76 F.3d 483, 486 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). Moreover, in determining whether the moving party has met its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue for trial, the district court may not rely solely on the statement of undisputed facts contained in 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 N.Y., 322 F.3d 139, 143 n. 5 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 2. Analysis Xiotech has moved for partial
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 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 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 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  