The New York Court of Appeals affirmed an Appellate Division ruling on Dec. 18, 2025, in *Gurbanova v. City of Ithaca*, reinforcing that municipal parking lots fall under statutory notice requirements for negligence claims against local governments.
In a brief memorandum decision, the state's highest court held that General Municipal Law § 50-e(4) applies to municipal parking lots, requiring plaintiffs to provide prior written notice of hazardous conditions before filing negligence lawsuits against municipalities.
Lazifa S. Gurbanova sued the City of Ithaca following an accident in a municipal parking lot. The case centered on whether the city's prior written notice law applied to the parking lot where the incident occurred. Gurbanova argued that the municipal parking lot should not be covered under the statutory framework that requires advance notification of dangerous conditions.
The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, citing established precedent from *Groninger v. Village of Mamaroneck* (2011). The court noted that municipal parking lots fall within the definition of "highways" contained in General Municipal Law § 50-e, which authorizes municipalities to require prior written notice of hazardous conditions at six enumerated locations as a condition precedent to negligence liability.
General Municipal Law § 50-e(4) serves as a protective mechanism for municipalities, allowing them to establish ordinances requiring written notice of dangerous conditions before negligence claims can proceed. The statute covers six specific locations, including highways, and municipalities must affirmatively adopt such notice requirements through local legislation.
The court referenced Vehicle and Traffic Law § 118's definition of "highway" as "the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic." This broad definition encompasses municipal parking lots that are publicly maintained and open for public vehicular use.
The *Groninger* precedent established that municipal parking lots qualify as highways under the statutory framework. That 2011 decision clarified the scope of municipal notice requirements, providing legal certainty for both municipalities and potential plaintiffs about when advance notice is required.
Thomas H. Bouman represented Gurbanova in the appeal, while P. David Twichell served as counsel for the City of Ithaca. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling with costs against the plaintiff, indicating the court found the city's position sufficiently supported by existing law.
The decision reinforces the importance of prior written notice requirements in municipal liability cases. These statutes serve dual purposes: they provide municipalities with advance warning of potentially dangerous conditions, allowing for timely remediation, and they protect local governments from unexpected liability for conditions they had no knowledge of or opportunity to address.
For municipalities across New York, the ruling confirms that properly enacted notice ordinances provide robust protection against negligence claims involving parking lots and other covered locations. Cities and villages that have adopted such ordinances under General Municipal Law § 50-e can rely on them as effective defenses when plaintiffs fail to provide required advance notice.
The decision also clarifies expectations for potential plaintiffs and their attorneys. Those injured in municipal parking lots must comply with local notice requirements before filing suit, or risk dismissal of their claims regardless of the underlying merits of their negligence allegations.
Municipal notice laws typically require specific information about the location, nature, and duration of allegedly hazardous conditions. The written notice must generally be provided within a specified timeframe after the condition is discovered and before the accident occurs, though specific requirements vary by municipality.
The *Gurbanova* decision represents a straightforward application of established precedent rather than a new development in municipal liability law. However, it serves as a recent reminder of the Court of Appeals' continued support for municipal notice requirements as legitimate exercises of local government authority.
The case was decided as slip opinion 2025 NY Slip Op 07076 and was published by the New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. The opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Legal practitioners handling municipal liability cases should ensure compliance with local notice ordinances before filing suit. The decision underscores that these procedural requirements remain viable defenses for municipalities when properly invoked and that courts will continue to enforce them strictly.
The ruling affects the broader landscape of municipal tort liability by reinforcing that statutory notice requirements serve valid governmental purposes and will be upheld when challenged. This continues the court's longstanding approach of balancing plaintiff access to courts with legitimate municipal interests in managing liability exposure and maintaining public infrastructure safely.