MALDONADO v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered September 8, 2025, which granted defendant the City of New York's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted in this action where plaintiff alleges that he was injured after tripping and falling on a two- or three-inch-high bump in an asphalt pathway inside Van Cortland Park. The City showed that it lacked prior written notice of the condition by submitting an affirmation of its assistant records officer for the relevant New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks) records showing that the City received no written complaints about the condition (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7–201[c][2];  see Harvey v Henry 85 LLC, 171 AD3d 531, 531–532 [1st Dept 2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 911 [2019] ).  The records also showed that the City did not affirmatively cause or create the defect through an act of negligence (see McAllister v City of New York, 171 AD3d 608, 608 [1st Dept 2019] ).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether the City had prior written notice of the defect or if its employees created an immediate dangerous condition by improperly cold-patching the subject pathway before the accident (see Civic v City of New York, 215 AD3d 445, 446 [1st Dept 2023];  Brown v City of New York, 150 AD3d 615, 616 [1st Dept 2017] ).  Even if the City cold-patched the pathway prior to plaintiff's fall, that fact by itself does not provide a basis for an inference that the repair immediately resulted in a hazardous condition (see Brenes v City of New York, 246 AD3d 458 [1st Dept 2026];  Arzeno v City of New York, 128 AD3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 914 [2015] ).

The Parks' supervisor's testimony that she did not know when the area shown in the photograph marked as plaintiff's Exhibit 1A was last repaired, but that it was her experience that an attempted repair was made, does not provide a nonspeculative basis to conclude that the work immediately resulted in the alleged defect before plaintiff's accident (see Pena v City of New York, 243 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2025] ).

Plaintiff's opposition also failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the City issued a written acknowledgment of the defect.  The 13 photographs taken by City employees labeled “asphalt cracked, uplifted or deteriorated at [the park]” relied upon by plaintiff regarding inspections of other defects found in the general vicinity of his fall do not constitute a written acknowledgement of the specific defect that allegedly caused his injury (see Trentman v City of New York, 162 AD3d 559, 559 [1st Dept 2018];  Haulsey v City of New York, 123 AD3d 606, 607 [1st Dept 2014] ).  None of the City's photographs and inspection reports documented or referred to a bump or a hole in the subject pathway.  Therefore, those records fail to demonstrate that the City had knowledge of the defect and the danger it presented prior to plaintiff's fall (see Hogin v City of New York, 103 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2013] ).