green
Positive treatment
8.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
M.O. v. City of New York
Plaintiffs otherwise failed to establish as a matter of law that the cubby constituted a dangerous condition for which defendants may be held liable ( see Hotaling v City of New York , 55 AD3d 396 , 398 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 862, 863 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rondin v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC
Plaintiffs expert supported her opinion that the stairway was defective “by nonconclusory reference to specific, currently applicable safety standards or practices” (Contreras v Zabar’s, 293 AD2d 362, 362 [1st Dept 2002]; see Hotaling v City of New York, 55 AD3d 396 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 862 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rondin v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC
Plaintiffs expert supported her opinion that the stairway was defective “by nonconclusory reference to specific, currently applicable safety standards or practices” (Contreras v Zabar’s, 293 AD2d 362, 362 [1st Dept 2002]; see Hotaling v City of New York, 55 AD3d 396 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 862 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Donaldson v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
(2×)
Corp. , 77 NY2d 525 , 533 n 2 [1991] ["[w]here the expert states his conclusion unencumbered by any trace of facts or data, his testimony should be given no probative force whatsoever . . . [i]ndeed, no reason is apparent why his testimony should not simply be stricken"] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Hotaling v City of New York , 55 AD3d 396 , 397-398 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 862 [2009]; Timmins v Tishman Constr.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dresher v. White Plains Hosp. Med. Ctr.
Dev., LLC , 69 AD3d 561, 562-563 ; see also Hotaling v City of New York , 55 AD3d 396, 399 , affd 12 NY3d 862 ), and that the nurse did not negligently open the door ( see generally Sangineto v Mamaroneck Union Free School Dist. , 282 AD2d 596, 596 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ndiaye v. NEP West 119th Street L.P.
She alleged that the stairs were maintained in violation of the 1916 Building Code of the City of New York, which required handrails on both sides of interior stairs. *565 Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that there was no defective condition on the stairs (see Egan v Emerson Assoc., LLC, 127 AD3d 806 [2d Dept 2015]), and that the building was constructed before 1916 and complied with the requirements of the applicable Tenement House Law, which only required one handrail on staircases like the one at issue (see Rivera v Bilynn Realt…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cambio v. City of New York
However, that publication does not impose “a particularized mandate or a clear legal duty” (see Fazzolari v City of New York, 105 AD3d 409 , 409-410 [1st Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Hotaling v City of New York, 55 AD3d 396 , 398 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 862 [2009]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cambio v. City of New York
However, that publication does not impose “a particularized mandate or a clear legal duty” (see Fazzolari v City of New York, 105 AD3d 409 , 409-410 [1st Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Hotaling v City of New York, 55 AD3d 396 , 398 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3d 862 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Christopher Hotaling Et Al., Appellants,
v.
City of New York Et Al., Respondents
v.
City of New York Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 4, 2009.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Breakstone Law Firm, P.C., Bellmore (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for appellants., Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City 0Cheryl Payer and Stephen J. McGrath of counsel), for respondents.
Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones Concur in Memorandum Chief Judge Lippman Taking No Part.
Cited by 26 opinions | Published
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.