New York Court of Appeals, 2009

Hotaling v. City of New York

Hotaling v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 4, 2009 · Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur in Memorandum Chief Judge Lippman Taking No Part
12 N.Y.3d 862; 909 N.E.2d 577

Hotaling v. City of New York

Opinion

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.