Hotaling v. City of New York
This text of 909 N.E.2d 577 (Hotaling v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
909 N.E.2d 577, 12 N.Y.3d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hotaling-v-city-of-new-york-ny-2009.