by Defendants. The Court is sympathetic: who would know better than the Parties in this case whether the current dispute is a product of the decades-long tension between the Hasidic community and the Villages of Ramapo? However, the Court’s role in evaluating competing motions for summary judgment is not to take the Plaintiffs (or Defendants) at their word, however sure Plaintiffs might be; rather, the Court must evaluate the evidence, if any, in support of their claims. Because Plaintiffs have offered almost no evidence in support of their claims, and certainly not enough to raise a contested issue of material fact, the Court must grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants. See First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968) (<HOLDING>). 3. Sections 1981, 1982, 1988, and 1985
holding the plaintiff could not defeat a summary judgment motion without offering any significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint holding that the nonmoving party may not defeat a summary judgment motion by standing on the bare allegations in the pleadings holding that conclusory statements without factual support are of no value to the court when deciding a summary judgment motion recognizing that resolving defendants state of mind may be appropriate on summary judgment and that plaintiff may not defeat a defendants properly supported motion for summary judgment  without offering any concrete evidence from which a reasonable juror could return a verdict in his favor recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment