The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiffs failed to provide the City of New York with prior written notice of the defect which allegedly caused the accident ( see Administrative Code of City of New York § 7-201 [c] [2]). Actual or constructive notice does not satisfy this requirement ( see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, 93 NY2d 471, 475-476; Poirier v. City of Schenectady, 85 NY2d 310, 314; Harvey v. Monteforte, 292 AD2d 420, 421; Delcamp v. Village of Brocton, 270 AD2d 842). While there was written acknowledgment of the defect from the City which presents an exception to the written notice requirement ( see Bruni v. City of New York, 2 NY3d 319, 327), the accident occurred within the grace period provided by the Administrative Code, which gives the city 15 days to repair or remove the defect ( see Administrative Code § 7-201 [c] [2]).
The plaintiffs' reliance on another exception to the written notice requirement based on a condition caused by the affirmative negligence of the City ( see Amabile v. City of Buffalo, supra at 474; Kiernan v. Thompson, 73 NY2d 840, 841) is also unavailing. They contend that this negligence consisted of a failure to repair a water main in an expeditious manner. A failure to repair is not affirmative behavior necessary to establish that the City created the defective condition ( see Gold v. County of Westchester, 15 AD3d 439; Corey v. Town of Huntington, 9 AD3d 345, 346; Vise v. County of Suffolk, 207 AD2d 341, 342; Michela v. County of Nassau, 176 AD2d 707, 708).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.