From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Munoz v. Mael Equities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 2, 2003
2 A.D.3d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2000.

December 2, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered August 16, 2002, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion only to the extent of finding defendants liable for those injuries sustained in the apartment occupied by plaintiff's aunt on the sixth floor of defendants' building, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Mark J. Elder, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Angela Delfino-Vitali, for Defendants-Respondents.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Gonzalez, JJ.


Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to lead, through defendants' negligence, both in his mother's apartment and in the sixth-floor apartment of his aunt who lived in the same building. Summary judgment as to liability with respect to the injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff by reason of lead exposure in his mother's apartment was properly denied since there is a triable issue as to whether defendants had notice that a child under the age of seven lived in that apartment ( see Woolfalk v. New York City Hous. Auth., 263 A.D.2d 355, 356). While plaintiff contends that the lease application for the apartment indicates that a 1-year-old child would be residing there, examination of the copy of the lease application in the record discloses sufficient ambiguity in the notation of the child's age to present a question as to whether the lease application did, in fact, provide the requisite notice.

Nonetheless, since the affidavit of plaintiff's expert contains uncontradicted proof that plaintiff's exposure to lead in the aunt's apartment made his injuries "significantly worse," and defendants do not challenge the motion court's finding of unrefuted proof that they had notice of a child under age seven in that apartment, defendants are liable to plaintiff for the injuries sustained by plaintiff in that apartment ( see id. at 356-357). The extent of the injuries sustained in that apartment goes to the question of damages. We therefore remand for a trial on the issue of liability for injuries sustained in the apartment occupied by plaintiff and his mother, and thereafter on all issues of damages.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Munoz v. Mael Equities, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 2, 2003
2 A.D.3d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Munoz v. Mael Equities, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EDWIN MUNOZ, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAEL EQUITIES, INC., ET AL.…

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

Date published: Dec 2, 2003

Citations

2 A.D.3d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
768 N.Y.S.2d 202

Citing Cases

Vega v. S.S.A. Properties, Inc.

The record shows that Jadeem may have performed its work in a manner which created extensive lead dust and…

Scott v. City of New York

In addition, the Appraisal Report that he received in March 1984 stated that a day care facility was operated…