dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 9 of 56compliant motion for summary judgment.” Tota v. Bentley, 379 F.App’x 31, 33 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming district court ordergranting defendants’ motion for summary judgment despite theirfailure to comply with W.D.N.Y. Local Rule 56.1, which istextually identical to S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 56.1). To the extentthere is any deficiency in the Rule 56.1 Statement, which wassubmitted in 2005, Defendants’ memorandum of law, the 2005 HeckDeclaration, and the exhibits thereto, provided more thanadequate notice of “the material facts as to which the movingparty contends there is no genuine issue to be tried.” LocalCiv. R. 56.1. This case is nearing its eighth year on thedocket; in order to ensure some measure of finality in theseproceedings, the Court believes the liability issues should beresolved on the merits.Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows thatthere is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and themovant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986). A genuine issue of fact exists where “the evidence issuch that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for thenonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.242, 248 (1986). In reviewing the evidence, “the district courtmust construe the facts in the light most favorable to thenonmoving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw all9