What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit because the City had not received prior written notice of the specific dangerous condition that allegedly caused the fall.

Who is affected by this decision?

Plaintiff Gordon Grubb is affected because his claim was dismissed; the City of New York prevailed and remains protected by the written-notice requirement in similar cases.

Why did the City's lack of written notice matter?

Under New York City law, the City is generally not liable for certain street and sidewalk defects unless it had prior written notice of the exact hazardous condition; without that notice, the plaintiff cannot recover.

Can the plaintiff still challenge the ruling?

The plaintiff could seek further review if allowed, such as permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but the Appellate Division affirmed and did not identify triable issues that would avoid dismissal.

Grubb v. City of New York

Docket Index No. 151101/20|Appeal No. 6498|Case No. 2025-03455|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 30, 2026 · yesterday
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02725
Docket numbers: Index No151101/20Appeal No6498Case No2025-03455

Appeal from an order granting the City of New York's motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal-injury complaint

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Gordon Grubb's slip-and-fall complaint against the City of New York. The City showed it lacked prior written notice of the specific dangerous condition at the Madison Avenue and East 52nd Street crosswalk as required by the New York City Administrative Code. The court held that the records plaintiff cited did not amount to a written acknowledgment of the particular defect and that plaintiff's allegations did not raise triable issues or satisfy exceptions to the written-notice rule, so dismissal was appropriate.

Issues Decided

Whether the City had prior written notice of the specific dangerous condition that caused plaintiff's fall as required by Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-201(c)(2).
Whether the documents plaintiff relied on constituted a written acknowledgment by the City of the existence and dangerous nature of the specific defect.
Whether any exception to the written-notice requirement applied to avoid dismissal.

Court's Reasoning

The court applied the municipal written-notice requirement under Admin. Code § 7-201(c)(2), which bars recovery absent prior written notice of the particular dangerous condition. The City produced evidence that it had not received such written notice, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to show an issue of fact. The plaintiff's cited records did not specifically acknowledge the existence and dangerous nature of the exact condition alleged, and his conclusory assertions failed to establish any recognized exception to the notice rule, so summary judgment for the City was proper.

Authorities Cited

Administrative Code of City of New York § 7-201(c)(2)
Gray v City of New York195 AD3d 538 (1st Dept 2021)
Bruni v City of New York2 NY3d 319 (2004)
Yarborough v City of New York10 NY3d 726 (2008)

Parties

Plaintiff: Gordon Grubb
Appellant: Gordon Grubb
Defendant: City of New York
Respondent: City of New York
Judge: Carol Sharpe
Judge: Kennedy, J.P.
Judge: Gesmer
Judge: González
Judge: Rosado
Judge: Chan

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-30
Trial court order entered: 2025-05-14

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel about further review
If plaintiff wishes to continue, discuss the prospects and grounds for seeking permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals or filing a motion for reargument.
2
Evaluate the record for notice evidence
Carefully review the administrative and inspection records to determine whether any document could be framed as a specific written acknowledgment of the defect for use in further proceedings.
3
Consider settlement options
Given the affirmed dismissal, consider whether settlement discussions with the City are appropriate, keeping in mind the court's finding on lack of written notice.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit because the City had not received prior written notice of the specific dangerous condition that allegedly caused the fall.
Who is affected by this decision?: Plaintiff Gordon Grubb is affected because his claim was dismissed; the City of New York prevailed and remains protected by the written-notice requirement in similar cases.
Why did the City's lack of written notice matter?: Under New York City law, the City is generally not liable for certain street and sidewalk defects unless it had prior written notice of the exact hazardous condition; without that notice, the plaintiff cannot recover.
Can the plaintiff still challenge the ruling?: The plaintiff could seek further review if allowed, such as permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but the Appellate Division affirmed and did not identify triable issues that would avoid dismissal.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Grubb v City of New York - 2026 NY Slip Op 02725

Grubb v City of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 02725

April 30, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Gordon Grubb, Plaintiff-Appellant,

City of New York, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Empire City Subway Company (Limited), et al., Defendants.

Decided and Entered: April 30, 2026

Index No. 151101/20|Appeal No. 6498|Case No. 2025-03455|

Before: Kennedy, J.P., Gesmer, González, Rosado, Chan, JJ.

Silbowitz Garafola Silbowitz & Schatz, LLP, Great Neck (Kayla E. Bargeron of counsel), for appellant.

Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (Stephanie Teplin of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Sharpe, J.), entered on or about May 14, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant City of New York's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action where plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell on a southern crosswalk at the intersection of Madison Avenue and East 52nd Street, the City established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it did not receive prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition as required by Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201(c)(2) (
see Gray v City of New York
, 195 AD3d 538, 538 [1st Dept 2021]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact on the prior written notice requirement. The records upon which plaintiff relies as evidence of a "written acknowledgment" of the defect by the City do not demonstrate an acknowledgment of the existence and the dangerous nature of the specific condition that plaintiff alleges caused his accident (
see

Bruni v City of New York
, 2 NY3d 319, 324-325 [2004]). Plaintiff's conclusory allegations do not create a triable issue with respect to any of the exceptions to the written notice requirement (
see Yarborough v City of New York
, 10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 30, 2026