Home/New York Court of Appeals/Bonomonte v. City of New York

Bonomonte v. City of New York

956 N.E.2d 1266, 17 N.Y.3d 866
New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 13, 2011·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Even assuming, as plaintiff alleges, that the City of New York owed plaintiff a duty and breached that duty, the City was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because it established, as a matter of law, that any negligence on its part was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see Sheehan v City of New York, 40 NY2d 496, 503 [1976]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bonomonte v. City of New York, 956 N.E.2d 1266, 17 N.Y.3d 866 (N.Y. 2011).

956 N.E.2d 1266 (Bonomonte v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gillern v. Mahoney
2017 NY Slip Op 6979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Butbul v. City of New York
2017 NY Slip Op 1176 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Nabi v. Con Edison Co. of N.Y.
135 A.D.3d 638 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Wood v. City of New York
98 A.D.3d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Williams v. State
969 N.E.2d 197 (New York Court of Appeals, 2012)
Vohra v. Queen Anne Co.
90 A.D.3d 519 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)