Hazel Ford appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Bank of America Corporation on her complaint for damages resulting from a slip and fall. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal we review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact. Summary judgment is proper only when no issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Preferred Real Estate Equities v. Housing Systems , 248 Ga. App. 745 548 SE2d 646 2001. Further, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must give the opposing party the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and the evidence and all inferences and conclusions therefrom must be construed most favorably toward the party opposing the motion. Moore v. Goldome Credit Corp. , 187 Ga. App. 594, 596 370 SE2d 843 1988. On motions for summary judgment, however, courts cannot resolve the facts or reconcile the issues. Fletcher v. Amax, Inc. , 160 Ga. App. 692, 695 288 SE2d 49 1981. When reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, this court conducts a de novo review of the law and the evidence. Desai v. Silver Dollar City, Inc. , 229 Ga. App. 160, 163 1 493 SE2d 540 1997.
In this case, we first note that although Ford cites a number of facts to support her argument, these facts are not supported by citations to the record. Court of Appeals Rule 27 c 3 mandates that each enumerated error must be supported in the brief by specific reference to the record or transcript. The burden is on the party asserting error to show it affirmatively in the record, and we will not cull the record on appellant’s behalf. Williams v. Resurgens and Affiliated Orthopaedists , 267 Ga. App. 578, 579 1 600 SE2d 378 2004. Nevertheless, this Court has discretion to consider the merits of an appeal even though a party has not complied with these rules. We exercise our discretion to consider the merits of this appeal because the record is small, the appellee’s brief covers most of the inadequacy in appellant’s brief, the error enumerated is evident, and the appellee has not moved to dismiss the appeal. Beman v. Kmart Corp ., 232 Ga. App. 219, 220 1 501 SE2d 580 1998
