that “[a]n affidavit in which the plaintiff merely restates the conclusory allegations of the complaint” is insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment). Second, Defendants argue that the portion of the A. Zaks Affirmation about whether certain comparator sites are similar to the Nike Site is inadmissible as unhelpful lay testimony. (See Defs.’ Opp’n 4 (citing A. Zaks May Aff'n ¶¶ 20-24).) Given, again, that Plaintiffs do not respond to this argument in their Reply, and that Plaintiffs have failed to proffer evidence, or even suggest, that A. Zaks has sufficient expertise to offer an opinion as to the similarity of development sites, the Court will not consider this portion of the A. Zaks Affirmation. See Lightfoot v. Union Carbide Corp., 110 F.3d 898, 911-12 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) (same). Third, Defendants argue that certain
holding lay opinion inadmissible if it does not help the factfinder to understand the witness testimony or to decide a fact a fact in issue citing fedrevid  701b adams v city of new york 993 fsupp2d 306 324 edny2014 holding it is a question of fact holding that lay witness opinion as to guilt of defendant inadmissible holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion holding that conflicting testimony raised fact issue fact finder was not obliged to accept one experts testimony over the other