This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
A New York City law generally makes the City liable for a defect in its streets and sidewalks only if it had prior written notice of it, but to have a claim dismissed on that ground before trial, the City must first show that it had none. Here, the Second Department reversed the dismissal of a man’s claim for a fall on the Riegelmann Boardwalk in Brooklyn, because the City’s affidavit did not say unequivocally that its records search found no prior written notice, and did not show that all the relevant records were searched.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- October 21, 2026
- Case
- Young v City of New York
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06166
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff alleged that on June 15, 2014, he was walking along the Riegelmann Boardwalk in Brooklyn when his foot became stuck in a damaged or defective board, and he fell and was injured. He sued the City of New York and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. They moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that they had not received prior written notice of the defect. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the motion, and he appealed.
The holding
The Second Department reversed and denied the motion. It restated that “[w]here a locality has enacted a prior notification law . . . , the locality establishes a defense as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not receive prior written notice of the defective condition” (2026 NY Slip Op 06166, *1, quoting Leblanc v City of New York), and that Administrative Code § 7-201(c) imposes liability “only for those defects or hazardous conditions which its officials have been actually notified exist at a specified location” (id., quoting Katz v City of New York). But “the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that they did not receive prior written notice of the alleged defect” (id.). The Parks Department’s legal liaison searched its records for the boardwalk for the two years before the accident, but “the affidavit did not unequivocally assert that the search failed to reveal any prior written notice of the alleged defect on the boardwalk” (id. at *1 to *2). And “the searched records apparently were not attached to the affidavit and, under the circumstances, the defendants otherwise failed to show that all of the relevant records were searched” (id. at *2).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the Court of Appeals’ decision in Katz v City of New York (87 NY2d 241) and the court’s earlier decision in Leblanc v City of New York (241 AD3d 1320).
What it means
- New York City, like many municipalities, has a prior written notice law. Under these laws, a claim for a defect in a street or sidewalk generally fails unless the municipality had written notice of the defect beforehand, with limited exceptions, such as when the municipality itself created the defect through an affirmative act of negligence.
- A municipality asking the court to dismiss a claim on this ground must prove its records search first. An affidavit that does not clearly say the search found no notice, or does not show that all the relevant records were searched, may not be enough.
- Claims against the City also require a Notice of Claim, generally served within 90 days (see our entry on Kopitova v NYCTA).
- The decision does not decide whether the City is liable or damages.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
On the same day, the same court reached the opposite result in Wilson v Incorporated Village of Valley Stream. There, a village’s representative testified that his search of the relevant records “revealed no prior written notice of any dangerous or defective condition at the subject location,” and the dismissal of a roadway fall claim was affirmed. The rule was the same; the difference was in the proof of the search. In our experience, prior written notice laws are among the hardest hurdles after a fall on public property, because an injured person rarely knows whether anyone complained in writing beforehand, and often must rely on the very party being sued for the records needed to prove the case. That is why the municipality’s own proof of its search deserves a close look. We believe two lessons follow. 1. After a fall on public property, photograph the exact spot and the defect, and get legal advice promptly, because the Notice of Claim deadline is short (see our post on falls on public property). 2. For lawyers, read the municipality’s search affidavit closely: which records, for what period, and whether it says plainly that nothing was found. A defense built on a records search is only as strong as the search.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201(c). Result: reversed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 21, 2026. Posted October 21, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.