Grubb v. City of New York
This text of Grubb v. City of New York (Grubb v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Grubb v City of New York
2026 NY Slip Op 02725
April 30, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Gordon Grubb, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
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
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Grubb v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grubb-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2026.