with Rule 56.1(b)(3)(A) and (B), Plaintiff has admitted the well-supported facts contained in the Village Defendants’ Statement at paragraphs 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 84, 85, 86, 89 and 109-111. Moreover, Plaintiffs attempts to introduce new facts in the context of his responses to Defendants’ Rule 56.1 statements are also improper. Plaintiffs responses to at least Village Defendants’ paragraphs 61, 69, 74, and 75 attempt to introduce new facts in contravention of the Local Rules, which require delineation of additional facts in a separate statement. See Loe. R. 56.1(b)(3); Ammons, 368 F.3d at 817 (“Rule 56.1 envisions a separate statement of additional facts.”). As such, the Court strikes these “additional facts” for failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1(b)(3). See Ammons, 368 F.3d at 817 (<HOLDING>). Given Plaintiffs evasive responses, improper
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering a prior interlocutory ruling holding that district court did not abuse discretion in not binding government to casual statements made by its attorney holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by striking facts included in nonmovants responsive memorandum