Legal Opinion
Hotaling v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 4, 2009PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
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…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Buchholz v. Trump 767 Fifth Avenue, LLCNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
3Cited by27 opinions
- Smart v. ZambitoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Cassidy v. Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Wilkes v. YMCA of Greater New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Etheridge v. Marion A. Daniels & Sons, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Ndiaye v. NEP West 119th Street L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.