Evidentiary Requirements for Summary Judgment and Appellate Review of New Evidence

Introduction

Sterling v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 23-7645-cv (2d Cir. Apr. 8, 2025), is a pro se appeal from the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff‐Appellant Everton Sterling challenged the dismissal of his RICO and fraud claims and subsequent denials of his motions for reconsideration and vacatur. The underlying dispute arose from a 2006 mortgage foreclosure action against Howard White’s Bronx property, which White conveyed to Sterling shortly after defaulting on a loan. Sterling alleged that the mortgages were procured by fraudulent misrepresentations of the property’s value.

At the district court level, some defendants were dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the rest obtained summary judgment under Rule 56. Sterling then moved for reconsideration and vacatur, all of which the district court denied. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed in a Summary Order.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit reviewed de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
Sterling’s RICO and fraud allegations were deemed conclusory, unsupported by admissible evidence, and insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
The Court declined to consider Sterling’s “land records” for the first time on appeal—finding no extraordinary circumstances to allow new evidence outside the record.
The Court confirmed that Rule 56 does not require a moving party to submit affidavits negating the opponent’s case; non‐affidavit evidence may suffice.
The Court rejected procedural‐due‐process and local‐rule arguments, noting Sterling had notice of filings and opportunities to respond.
All district court orders—judgment and denials of reconsideration—were affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Kravitz v. Purcell, 87 F.4th 111 (2d Cir. 2023): Established that summary judgment review is de novo.
Hayes v. Dahlke, 976 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2020): Restated the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) regarding absence of genuine dispute and entitlement as a matter of law.
Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005): Described that non‐movants cannot rely on “conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation” to avoid summary judgment.
Amara v. Cigna Corp., 53 F.4th 241 (2d Cir. 2022): Held that appellate courts may consider evidence outside the record only in “extraordinary circumstances.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986): Clarified that Rule 56 contains no requirement that the movant must negate the non‐movant’s claim with affidavits.

Legal Reasoning

The Second Circuit’s decision turned on three core legal principles:

Standard for Summary Judgment: Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), a movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if no genuine dispute exists on any material fact. The non‐movant must present admissible evidence to show a triable issue. Conclusory allegations are insufficient. (Jeffreys)
Form of Evidence under Rule 56: While Rule 56(c)(1) requires that a party “support” factual assertions with admissible evidence, there is no express obligation for the movant to submit affidavits negating each claim. Other admissible materials—documents, deposition excerpts, admissions—can carry the movant’s burden. (Celotex)
Appellate Consideration of New Evidence: A party seeking to introduce evidence for the first time on appeal must show “extraordinary circumstances” justifying departure from the appellate record. Merely pointing to materials that would not alter the outcome does not meet that high bar. (Amara)

Impact

This decision reaffirms and clarifies key facets of summary‐judgment practice in the Second Circuit:

Pro se litigants must marshal admissible evidence to oppose summary judgment; mere conjecture will not suffice.
Attorneys defending summary‐judgment motions need not rely exclusively on affidavits; they may use exhibits, records, and testimony transcripts to meet their burden.
Appellate advocates should ensure all evidence they intend to rely upon is properly introduced at the trial level; belated attempts to expand the record will almost never succeed absent extraordinary justification.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Judgment (Rule 56): A pre‐trial procedure where the court decides a case in favor of one party if there’s no real dispute over important facts. The moving party shows that even taking the other side’s version of facts as true, they still win as a matter of law.
De Novo Review: An appellate court’s fresh examination of a legal issue, without deference to the lower court’s legal conclusions.
Genuine Dispute of Material Fact: A disagreement about an essential fact that could affect the case’s outcome. If no such disagreement exists, summary judgment is appropriate.
Extraordinary Circumstances: Highly unusual or compelling reasons permitting evidence outside the existing record to be considered on appeal, such as newly discovered documents that fundamentally change the case’s complexion.

Conclusion

Sterling v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. reaffirms the strict evidentiary standards for defeating summary judgment, underscores that Rule 56 does not mandate moving‐party affidavits, and limits appellate courts’ willingness to consider new evidence. Litigants in the Second Circuit should take heed: build a complete evidentiary record at the district level, support factual contentions with admissible material, and be prepared for de novo review on appeal. This decision thus solidifies existing law on summary‐judgment practice and preserves procedural fairness by preventing last‐minute evidentiary gambits.