MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION This insurance coverage action arises out of a property loss sustained at Plaintiffs’ property which, Defendant contends, was not a covered loss under the State Farm insurance policy issued to Plaintiffs. Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the action, see Dkt. No. 31, which Plaintiffs oppose, see Dkt. No. 32, and to which Defendant files a reply, see Dkt. No. 34. After the time to file a response to Defendant’s motion had expired and without Court leave, Plaintiffs filed a “Supplemental Memorandum of Law,” see Dkt. No. 35; an affidavit from Plaintiffs’ expert witness with a copy of his expert report attached (identified by Plaintiffs’ counsel as a “Motion to Supplement Pleadings”), see Dkt. No. 36; and an Affirmation from Plaintiffs’ counsel in which he argues the merits of the case, explains why he did not timely provide Plaintiffs’ expert witness statement, and asks the Court to “search the record and grant Plaintiffs summary judgment and an inquest for damages” (identified by Plaintiffs’ counsel as a “First Motion for Summary Judgment”), see Dkt. No. 37. Defendant responds, arguing that the Court should reject Plaintiffs’ arguments, requests, and motions represented in Dkt. Nos. 36 and 37. See Dkt. No. 38. II. BACKGROUND The Court’s ability to set forth the background facts of this case is complicated by Plaintiffs’ insufficient compliance with the Local Rules, by the fact that Plaintiffs filed additional legal memoranda, factual arguments, and a motion to supplement the pleadings after Defendant’s motion was fully submitted, and because Plaintiffs submitted some of this material in an untimely manner. A. Local Rules The Local Rules require a party moving for summary judgment to submit a “Statement of Material Facts,” which sets forth, with specific citations to the record, each material fact about which the moving party contends there exists no genuine issue. See N.D.N.Y. L.R. 56.1(a) (“The Statement of Material Facts shall set forth, in numbered paragraphs, a short and concise statement of each material fact about which the moving party contends there exists no genuine issue. Each fact listed shall set forth a specific citation to the record where the fact is established.”). “The record for purposes of the Statement of Material Facts includes the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits. It does not, however, include attorney’s affidavits.” Id. “The purpose of Local Rule 56.1 is to streamline the consideration of summary judgment motions by freeing the district courts from the need to hunt through voluminous records without guidance from the parties.” Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc., 258 F.3d 62, 74 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).1 Defendant submitted a Local Rule 56.1(a) Statement of Material Facts in support of its motion, citing to record support for each of its separately numbered paragraphs. See Dkt. No. 31-19 (“Def. SOMF”). Once a movant has submitted a properly supported Local Rule 56.1(a) Statement of Material Facts, the party opposing the motion shall file a separate Response to the Statement of Material Facts. The opposing party’s response shall mirror the movant’s Statement of Material Facts by admitting and/or denying each of the movant’s assertions in a short and concise statement, in matching numbered paragraphs. Each denial shall set forth a specific citation to the record where the factual issue arises. The Court may deem admitted any properly supported facts set forth in the Statement of Material Facts that the opposing party does not specifically controvert. N.D.N.Y. L.R. 56.1(b); see McCallion v. Marra, No. 9:22-CV-0253 (GTS/CFH), 2024 WL 2078665, *5, n.5 (N.D.N.Y. May 9, 2024) (stating that, “[a]mong other things, Local Rule 56.1 (previously Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)) requires that the non-movant file a response to the movant’s Statement of Material Facts, which admits or denies each of the movant’s factual assertions in matching numbered paragraphs and supports any denials with a specific citation to the record where the factual issue arises” (citing N.D.N.Y. L.R. 56.1)). The responding Statement of Material Facts is not a mere formality, and the courts apply this rule strictly. See N.Y. Teamsters Conference Pension & Ret. Fund v. Express Servs., Inc., 426 F.3d 640, 648-49 (2d Cir. 2005) (upholding grant of summary judgment where “[t]he district court, applying Rule 7.1(a)(3) strictly, reasonably deemed [movant's] statement of facts to be admitted” because the non-movant submitted a responsive Rule 7.1(a)(3) statement that “offered mostly conclusory denials of [movant's] factual assertions and failed to include any record citations”); Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30, 31 n.1 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (accepting as true material facts contained in unopposed local rule statement of material facts); Meaney v. CHS Acquisition Corp., 103 F. Supp. 2d 104, 108 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (deeming movant’s Rule 7.1(a)(3) Statement admitted where non-movant’s response “set forth no citations — specific or otherwise — to the record”); McKnight v. Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 189 F.R.D. 225, 227 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) (“deem[ing] the portions of Defendants’ 7.1(a)(3) statement that are not specifically controverted by Plaintiff to be admitted”); Osier v. Broome Cnty., 47 F. Supp. 2d 311, 317 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) (deeming admitted all facts in defendants’ Rule 7.1(a)(3) statement where “plaintiff submitted thirteen pages of purported facts without any indication where those facts can be located in the record”). Plaintiffs submitted a response to Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts in which they admitted some facts, denied others but without citation to the record where a factual dispute arose, and failed to respond to Defendant’s paragraph 14. See Dkt. No. 32-2 (“Pl. Resp. SOMF”). In addition, Plaintiffs provide an “Answering Affidavit” from Plaintiff Anthony J. Fernandes purportedly submitted in opposition to Defendant’s motion in which he alleges certain facts and makes legal arguments relative to Defendant’s motion but does not directly respond to Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts. See Dkt. No. 32, A. Fernandes Ans. Aff. B. Relevant Facts In setting forth the relevant facts, the Court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, see Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334, 344 (2d Cir. 2011), and takes into account the often-stated judicial preference to resolve matters on the merits and not on procedural default, see Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Kessler, No. 5:20-cv-894 (TJM/ML), 2021 WL 4262665, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2021) (citing Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1993)) (other citations omitted). Unless stated otherwise, the Court cites Defendant’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts (“Def. SOMF”) where Plaintiffs have either admitted an asserted fact or have not adequately opposed a properly supported fact. Where appropriate, the Court also considers the admissible evidence that Plaintiffs submitted. 1. Homeowners Policy of Insurance Defendant State Farm issued a Homeowners Policy of insurance to Plaintiffs as the named insureds, bearing policy number 32 CX-6192-9 (the “State Farm Policy”). See Dkt. No. 31-19, Def. SOMF, at 1. Plaintiffs were/are owners of real property located at 5361 Verplanck Avenue, Beacon, New York (“insured premises” or “the Property”). See id. at 2. The policy expressly excludes, among other things, damage as a result of a frozen plumbing system unless the insured “used reasonable care” to “maintain heat in the building structure at 55 degrees Fahrenheit or higher” or “shut off the water supply and drain the system and appliances of water.” See Dkt. No. 31-10, Marigliano Aff., at 7; Dkt. No. 31-11, Policy. As explained more fully below, on January 27, 2021, Plaintiffs suffered property damage at the Property caused by water running out of an internal water pipe into the insured premises (the “loss”). Defendant determined that the loss was caused by frozen pipes occasioned because the heat was not on in the subject premises. See Dkt. No. 31-19, Def. SOMF, at
9-12. Defendant denied coverage on March 11, 2022, concluding that Plaintiffs did not exercise reasonable care to maintain heat in the home to 55 degrees. See id. The central dispute in this case is whether Plaintiffs turned on and maintained the heat in the insured premises2 before leaving for Dubai. 2. Plaintiffs’ Absence from the Property Plaintiffs left the insured premises for Dubai on September 30, 2021, to visit Ms. Fernandes’ sister, with plans to return the following month, but thereafter extended their stay until the end of February 2022. See Dkt. No. 31-19, Def. SOMF, at
