The opinion of the court was delivered by: Matsumoto, United States District Judge:
On September 29, 2008, plaintiff Zinoviy Levitant ("plaintiff") commenced the instant action against defendants City of New York Human Resources Administration ("HRA"), Robert Doar, Aida Sanchez, and Hilit Kroman (collectively, "defendants"). (ECF No. 1, Compl.) Plaintiff's action alleges claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), New York Executive Law §§ 290, et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), NYC Administrative Code §§ 8-101, et seq. (Id. ¶¶ 56-101.) Plaintiff, a former caseworker with the HRA, specifically claims that his rights under the FMLA were violated by defendants' failure to provide him with a medical leave of absence, that he was denied a reasonable accommodation for his disability, that he was denied workers' compensation leave, and that he was terminated based on his disability and illness, and because he was a delegate for his Union. (See generally id.)*fn1
On June 25, 2012, defendants filed an unopposed motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 36, Mot. for Summ. J.) For the reasons discussed below, the court hereby grants defendants' motion in its entirety, thereby dismissing plaintiff's complaint in its entirety and directing that judgment be entered for defendants.
On January 31, 2012, the court granted the parties' joint proposed amended briefing schedule as defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Order of Jan. 31, 2012.) Pursuant to that order, defendants were to serve their motion by March 16, 2012; plaintiff was to serve his opposition by April 16, 2012; and defendants were to file their reply, if any, by April 30, 2012. (Id.) The court thereafter granted plaintiff two additional extensions of time to file his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, first until May 16, 2012, (Order of April 17, 2012), and then until June 4, 2012, (Order of May 15, 2012).
As of June 19, 2012, plaintiff had not filed an opposition to defendants' motion. Therefore, the court ordered plaintiff to file by June 22, 2012 a letter explaining his failure to serve his opposition on defendants in accordance with the court's prior orders, and to serve his opposition by the same date. (Order of June 19, 2012.) Plaintiff failed to either file an explanatory letter with the court, or to serve his opposition on defendants. Accordingly, on June 25, 2012, the court deemed defendants' motion for summary judgment unopposed. (Order of June 25, 2012.)
A court may grant summary judgment only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "An issue of fact is 'genuine' if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The moving party carries the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Further, a reviewing court must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all reasonable inferences and ambiguities must be resolved against the moving party. Flanigan v. Gen. Elec. Co., 242 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 further provides that if a non-moving party fails to oppose a summary judgment motion, the court may "grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials--including the facts considered undisputed--show that the movant is entitled to it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The Second Circuit has held, however, that:
[W]here the non-moving party "chooses the perilous path of failing to submit a response to a summary judgment motion, the district court may not grant the motion without first examining the moving party's submission to determine if it has met its burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact remains for trial."
Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 BEARGRAM Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Amaker v. Foley, 274 F.3d 677, 681 (2d Cir. 2001)). Therefore, "[i]f the evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion does not meet the movant's burden of production, then summary judgment must be denied even if no ...