Wurtenberg v. City of New York (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Wurtenberg v. The City of New York
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New York (NY)
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Granted
Wurtenberg v. The City of New York, 2026 WL 144456 (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 144456 (N.Y.Sup.) (Trial Order)Supreme Court of New York.New York CountyCraig WURTENBERG, Plaintiff,v.THE CITY OF NEW YORK, The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, The New YorkCity Transit Authority, The Long Island Railroad Company, National Railroad PassengerCorporation dba Amtrack, Mid-Town Development Limited Partnership, Defendants.Mid-Town Development Limited Partnership, Plaintiff,v.Westside Livery Stables, Inc., Antonina Spina, Franca Gasperetti, John Does I, Defendants.Nos. 155059/2016, 595561/2020.January 12, 2026.*1 Part 55Decision * Order On MotionJames d'Auguste, J.S.C.MOTION DATE 07/28/2025MOTION SEQ. NO. 009 010The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264,265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 322, 325, 330, 331, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341,342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 357, 358, 359 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER).The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 010) 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287,288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312,313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 326, 332, 333, 334, 335, 353, 354, 355, 356, 360, 361, 362 were read on thismotion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER).In Motion Sequence Numbers 009 and 010, defendants Mid-Town Development Limited Partnership (Midtown) and TheNational Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak (Amtrak) seek summary judgment dismissing the complaint.On March 20, 2015, at approximately 6:45 pm, plaintiff sustained injuries when he was injured when he slipped on a snowysidewalk on West 38th Street in Manhattan. Defendants have shown via attestation of expert witness affidavits that there wasan ongoing storm in progress (as defined by New York City Administrative Code 16-123[a]) at the time of plaintiff's accident.Prince v. New York City Housing Authority, 302 A.D.2d 285, 285 (1st Dep't 2003). Plaintiff asserts that there was no snow fallingat the time of the accident, but the storm-in-progress doctrine provides landowners a four-hour window from the cessation of theinclement weather. Here, as noted by defendants' experts, meteorological data shows that there was significant snowfall within a
Wurtenberg v. The City of New York, 2026 WL 144456 (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2two-hour-period preceding the subject accident, which continued into that evening. Additionally, plaintiff's direct claims againstAmtrak are also dismissed because this defendant did not own the premises, and any special use it made of the property wasnot a proximate cause of plaintiff's accident. Trent-Clark v. City of New York, 114 A.D.3d 558, 559 (1st Dep't 2014).In reply papers, defendants have requested that the Court impose sanctions based upon plaintiff's misrepresenting the factualrecord and relying upon fictitious legal authority. Having reviewed plaintiff's opposition papers, the Court is constrained to agreethat, at a minimum, plaintiff's opposition contains (consistent with the misuse of a generative artificial intelligence program)non-existent legal authority and several cases that do not stand for the proposition for which they are cited. Nonetheless, theCourt, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to impose sanctions in the absence of a formal motion seeking this relief.Nonetheless, the Court reminds plaintiff's counsel that he has a professional and ethical obligation to verify all AI-generateddata before this material can be used in a court submission and cautions him that a future failure to abide by this obligationwill result in sanctions being imposed.*2 Accordingly, the motions for summary judgment are granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the actionagainst the moving defendants with prejudice.This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.1/12/2026DATE<<signature>>James d'Auguste, J.S.C.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access