Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Hotaling v. City of New York 12 N.Y.3d 862

← Cases

Hotaling v. City of New York

12 N.Y.3d 862 Court N.Y. Decision date 2009-06-04 English

Contents

Majority

p. 862
[909 NE2d 577, 881 NYS2d 655]
Christopher Hotaling et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.
Decided June 4, 2009
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Breakstone Law Firm, P.C., Bellmore (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for appellants.
p. 863
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City 0Cheryl Payer and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The certified question should not be answered as unnecessary.

The Appellate Division properly held that the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a prima facie case of negligent design (see generally Buchholz v Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC, 5 NY3d 1 , 8-9 [2005]).

Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

Cases cited