the exemplar is identical to the Lease Agreement that the Macreadys signed. Accordingly, because the Macreadys have failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the type size of the Lease Agreement, the Court rejects their argument that summary judgment must be denied. See Meehan, 2008 WL 905886, at *5 (awarding summary judgment to plaintiffs: “The new copy of the Lease directly responds to an issue raised in Meehan’s opposition papers. Meehan has not questioned the authenticity of the copy or indicated that he wished to submit additional evidence to refute the validity thereof. In this regard, he could have moved for leave to file a sur-reply but chose not to.”); see also B-Sharp Musical Productions, Inc. v. Haber, 27 Misc.3d 41, 899 N.Y.S.2d 792 (App.Term, 1st Dep’t) (Feb. 19, 2010) (<HOLDING>). ii Federal Consumer Leasing Act The Macreadys
holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding that the court must consider evidence submitted in support of a crossmotion for summary judgment to determine whether it raises triable issues of fact defeating the opponents motion holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying local rules that excluded some of the material facts offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment holding that grant of judgment was premature where plaintiff submitted properly supported rule 56f request for further discovery in opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment holding that defendants failed to raise triable issue of material fact where they did not establish that the type size of the copy they submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion was identical to that of the original contract