addressed to any of the Three Corporate Entities during the time the Policy was in force. Defendant has produced three checks issued by Plaintiff, each one addressed to one of the Three Corporate Entities. Sutton Supp. Decl., Ex. 15. The date on one of these checks is October 11, 2008, a fact that flatly contradicts Plaintiffs contention that Defendant stopped accepting checks addressed to any of the Three Corporate Entities in July 2008. Id. Moreover, Sutton testified that Defendant accepted checks made payable to any of the Three Corporate Entities during the entire; time the Policy was in force. Id., at ¶ 2. Plaintiff offers the bald conclusory assertion that Defendant ceased this practice in July 2008, without a scintilla of evidence in support. See Ying Jing, 996 F.2d at 532-33 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs second meritless argument is that
holding that party may not rely on conclusory statements or an argument that the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are not credible holding that the nonmoving party may not defeat a summary judgment motion by standing on the bare allegations in the pleadings recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment holding that in order to defeat successfully a motion for summary judgment more than mere allegations and conclusory statements must be offered holding that a nonmoving party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by relying on conclusory statements