Allen sues Janet for trespass onto his property in New York federal court (assume New York law applies to the dispute). At the close of discovery, he moves for summary judgment under Rule 56. A recent amendment to the New York state constitution provides that, "Since the right to a jury trial is inviolate and the best security of a free people, summary judgment is impermissible. A jury trial shall always be available upon demand of a party." As a consequence, New York's civil procedure rules do not provide for summary judgment. The district court decides that it must apply New York's civil procedure rules and refuses to grant the motion, but acknowledges that it would have because no reasonable jury could find for Janet. A jury then ultimately decides for Janet at trial and admits that it nullified the law in open court. Allen appeals, arguing that the court should have applied Rule 56. True or false, under Hanna part 2, Rule 56 will displace New York's constitutional provision precluding summary judgment?

Then try StudyFetch, the AI-powered platform that can answer your questions and teach you more about it!