From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Paul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 2002
290 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-11163

Argued January 7, 2002.

January 22, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated August 9, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendant Anthony Paul for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Mark E. Weinberger, P.C., Great Neck, N.Y. (Larry Bonchonsky and Marc J. Musman of counsel), for appellants.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Gregory S. Katz and Meredith Drucker of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondent.

The infant plaintiff allegedly suffered lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead paint in her apartment in a building owned by the respondent. To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition (see, Chapman v. Silber, 97 N.Y.2d 9; Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628; Bellony v. Siegel, 288 A.D.2d 411 [2d Dept., Nov. 26, 2001]). The respondent correctly contends that he cannot be charged with constructive notice of the alleged lead-paint condition pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York, since the building is not a multiple dwelling (see, Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, supra). However, even in the absence of any applicable legislation, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the respondent had constructive notice under the circumstances of this case (see, Chapman v. Silber, supra). Therefore, the respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him should have been denied.

ALTMAN, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, O'BRIEN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brown v. Paul

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 2002
290 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Brown v. Paul

Case Details

Full title:JUANITA TIMIKA BROWN, ETC., et al., appellants, v. ANTHONY PAUL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 22, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 469 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
736 N.Y.S.2d 415

Citing Cases

Vidal v. Rodriquez

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. The infant plaintiff allegedly suffered injuries from…

Parra v. Lopez

As to the remaining requirement, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact that the defendants knew or…