production: it must ensure that the evidence upon which the movant relies supports the facts asserted; confirm that the facts entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law; and set forth its reasoning for granting summary judgment. See Vt. Teddy Bear, 373 F.3d at 244; see also Giannullo v. City of N.Y., 322 F.3d 139, 143 n. 5 (2d Cir.2003) (noting that granting summary judgment without verifying the supporting facts “would derogate the truth-finding functions of the judicial process by substituting convenience for facts”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), (e)(3). We have examined the record evidence and considered the factual allegations in Alzawahra’s verified amended complaint, insofar as they are in the form of admissible evidence. See Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 872 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Even drawing all permissible inferences in
holding that summary judgment is not appropriate where matters of credibility and determining the weight of the evidence exist holding that the function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the merits of the issues themselves holding that a verified complaint can be considered as summary judgment evidence only to the extent that it comports with the requirements of rule 56e holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate holding that a verified complaint is treated as an affidavit for summary judgment purposes and considered in determining whether material issues of fact exist