Hotaling v City of New York
2009 NY Slip Op 04303 [12 NY3d 862]
June 4, 2009
Court of Appeals
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, July 22, 2009


[*1]
Christopher Hotaling et al., Appellants,
v
City of New York et al., Respondents.

Decided June 4, 2009

Hotaling v City of New York, 55 AD3d 396, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

The Breakstone Law Firm, P.C., Bellmore (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for appellants.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Cheryl Payer and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for respondents.

{**12 NY3d at 863} 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. [*2]

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.