Case ID: ny3d_17/html/0866-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[956 NE2d 1266, 932 NYS2d 421]
    Dominic Bonomonte, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.
    Decided October 13, 2011
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Apicella & Schlesinger, New York City (Alan C. Kestenbaum of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Ronald E. Sternberg of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Even assuming, as plaintiff alleges, that the City of New York owed plaintiff a duty and breached that duty, the City was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint because it established, as a matter of law, that any negligence on its part was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see Sheehan v City of New York, 40 NY2d 496, 503 [1976]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.