Christopher Hotaling v. The City of New York
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
================================================================= This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------No. 146 SSM 13 Christopher Hotaling et al., Appellants, v. The City of New York et al., Respondents. Submitted by Jay L. T. Breakstone, for appellants. Submitted by Cheryl Payer, for respondents. 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 - 1 - - 2 - SSM No. 13 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]). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered as unnecessary, in a memorandum. Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur. Chief Judge Lippman took no part. Decided June 4, 2009 - 2 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
