Hotaling v. City of New YorkHotaling v. City of New York
Jun 4, 2009
Versions:12 N.Y.3d 862909 N.E.2d 577881 N.Y.S.2d 655
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.