
    In re: SUPREMA SPECIALTIES, INC. Harleysville Worcester Mutual Insurance Company, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bank of America N.A., as successor by Merger to Fleet National Bank, as agent for the Senior Secured Lender Group, Suprema Specialties West, Inc., Suprema Specialties Northeast, Inc., Suprema Specialties Northwest, Inc., Suprema Specialties, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, Kenneth P. Silverman, Trustee.
    No. 07-2393-bk.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 17, 2009.
    
      Richard Gabriele, Westerman Ball Ederer Miller & Sharfstein, LLP, Mineóla, N.Y. (David Westermann Jr., Westermann Hamilton Sheehy Aydelott & Keenan, LLP, on the brief), for Appellants.
    David M. Gossett, Washington, D.C. (Tai Lui Tan, Washington, D.C, Brian Trust, New York, NY, Laura D. Metzger, New York, NY, on the brief) Mayer Brown LLP, for Appellees.
    Jay S. Heilman, Silverman Perlstein & Acampora LLP, Jericho, NY, for the Trustee.
    PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK and Hon. B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges, and Hon. DENISE COTE, District Judge.
    
    
      
       Honorable Denise Cote, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs Harleysville Worcester Mutual Insurance Company and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Insurance Company appeal from a May 7, 2007, opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge), In re Suprema Specialties, Inc., 370 B.R. 517 (S.D.N.Y.2007), affirming an order of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (James M. Peck, Judge), In re Suprema Specialties, Inc., Adv. Pr. No. 02-02293, 2006 WL 2583648, 2006 Bankr.LEXIS 2358 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2006), granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs. We assume the parties’ and them counsel’s familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, the opinions of the bankruptcy court and district court, and the issues raised on this appeal. We affirm for substantially the same reasons relied upon by the bankruptcy court and district court.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the bankruptcy court is hereby AFFIRMED.  