it makes little sense to require inmates first to raise such issues with lower ranking correction officers in the Yaphank jail. Rosenblatt appears to concede this anomaly, but his proffered remedy — that grievances be submitted directly to the grievance coordinator — appears nowhere in the handbook and is not intuitively obvious. Finally, while the affidavit declares that “[cjomplaints made by inmates involving acts or occurrences that take place while the inmate is in the custody of the Suffolk County Sheriffs Department are issues within the control of the Warden,” Joint App’x at 95, that averment states a legal conclusion (about what constitutes control) that is insufficient to support the district court’s ruling. See Bickerstaff v. Vassar Coll., 196 F.3d 435, 451 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). And the defendants did not allege facts (let
holding that affidavits that are conclusory and based on hearsay can not be used to oppose motion for summary judgment holding conclusory statements in affidavits and deposition testimony standing alone are insufficient to withstand a properlysupported motion for summary judgment holding party opposing summary judgment does not show genuine issue for trial by replacing conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit holding affidavits based on conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment 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