In Vucetovic v. Epsom Downs (10 N.Y.3d 517 [2008]), the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether any exception to the definition of "sidewalk" might exist within the area defined by the boundaries in Title 19 of the Administrative Code. The court ultimately held that, despite their inclusion in the physical boundaries articulated in Title 19, tree wells are not part of the "sidewalk" for purposes of Administrative Code 7-210, which imposes tort liability on property owners who fail to maintain city-owned sidewalks. (Id. at 518-519). In Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., the plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell over raised portions of a tree well while walking down the sidewalk in Manhattan. Prior to September 14, 2003, the City of New York was generally liable for accidents caused by a sidewalk defect, and a property owner could only be held liable under certain conditions, including when it caused or created the defect. Administrative Code 7-210, which became effective on September 14, 2003, shifted liability for accidents caused by sidewalk defects to the abutting property owner and imposed a specific duty on the owner to maintain the sidewalk. The trial court In Vucetovic analyzed the relevant sections of the Administration Code which defined the term "sidewalk" to determine whether a tree well should be considered part of the "sidewalk" for purposes of this shift in liability to the abutting property owner. Justice Gische held that a tree well is not part of the sidewalk for purposes of 7-210, writing, "Had the legislature Intended to shift responsibility (and therefore tort liability) to the property owner for anything that is part of, or located on, a sidewalk (such as a tree well) It could and should have so articulated." (2006 NY Slip Op 30210[U], New York County, September 18, 2006). The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Justice Gische's decision and order, also noting that Ad-ministrative Code 18-104 entrusts the Department of Parks and Recreation with exclusive management of the City's trees and noted that that section refers to the trees as "in streets", and "thus something separate and distinct from streets." (Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 2007 NY Slip Op 6577, [September 6, 2007]; aff'd at 2008 NY Slip Op 4901 [June 3, 2008]). The Court analyzed who was responsible for the maintenance of the tree well. Justice Kaye stated: "As we know, however careful and comprehensive the answer, a court decision rarely is the last word on any subject. In one form or another, sidewalk trees undoubtedly will continue to reappear on the dockets, especially with the prospect of 220,000 more of them on New York City sidewalks alone. Although these trees are technically the province of the Parks Department, and sidewalk maintenance is technically the province of the abutting property owners, these separate domains come into contact, and inevitably also into conflict. The collective history of New York "tree" and "sidewalk" laws reflect the competing interests." The Court of Appeals held that a tree well is not part of the sidewalk for purposes of liability under 7-210 of the Administrative Code, which states that the abutting property owner rather than the City is responsible for the maintenance of sidewalks. However, the Court of Appeals did not address the issue of whether prior written notice is required to main-tain an action against the City for failing to maintain a tree well. Administrative Code 7-201(c)(2), which is the section of the code containing the written notice requirement, specifically states that prior written notice is required for defects on a sidewalk or "encumbrances thereon or attachments thereto." This language is much broader than the language in 7-210 as it is not limited solely to sidewalks. Based on the broader language of 7-201(c)(2), another court has specifically found that written notice is required for injuries that occur in tree wells and that Vucetovic did not overrule previous holdings requiring prior written notice in tree well accident cases.