
    Gregory O’BRIEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARGO PARTNERS, INC., a/k/a Argo Partners, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-3656-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 30, 2011.
    Andrew Mark St. Laurent, Harris, Cutler, Cash & Houghteling LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Kenneth I. Schacter (Michael C. D’Agostino, Sara R. Simeonidis, Of Counsel, on the brief), Bingham McCutchen LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, PETER W. HALL and RAYMOND J. LOHIER JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Gregory O’Brien (“O’Brien”), appeals the order of the District Court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Argo Partners, Inc. (“Argo”) on the basis of its holding that, in assigning to Argo, in exchange for $62,500, “all” future rights, title, and interest in his claim against a third-party estate, including “any future distribution” he might receive from the estate on his claim, O’Brien unambiguously relinquished to Argo the right to receive any possible future interest payments. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

We review de novo an order granting summary judgment and ask whether a district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003). Nevertheless, “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Following de novo review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the District Court for substantially the same reasons stated in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See O’Brien v. Argo Partners, Inc., 736 F.Supp.2d 528 (E.D.N.Y.2010). O’Brien may not introduce extrinsic evidence to challenge the meaning of agreements that are clear and unambiguous on their face. E.g., W.W.W. Assoc., Inc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 163, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639 (1990). The terms of the assignment agreement and purchase agreement leave no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion that O’Brien assigned to Argo his right to receive all future payments on his claim, including future interest payments.

CONCLUSION

We have considered O’Brien’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.  