Opinion
April 26, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and cross claim are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.
On May 4, 1990, the defendant Robert R. Tobias sold the six-unit apartment building at issue to the codefendant 389 Woodbine Corporation (hereinafter Woodbine), after he had owned it for one and one-half years. Woodbine promptly made several improvements to the building, including extensive renovations and repainting in apartment 1R. On June 7, 1990, 34 days after Woodbine acquired the property, and after the completion of the foregoing improvements, the infant plaintiff, her mother, and her grandmother moved into apartment 1R. On July 3, 1990, or some 40 days later, the infant plaintiff was diagnosed with elevated levels of lead in her blood. That same month, the New York City Department of Health (hereinafter the DOH) found excessive lead in peeling paint in the buildings hallways, but not in apartment 1R.
On these facts, the action against the former landlord must be dismissed. As a general rule, liability for dangerous conditions does not extend to a prior owner of the premises ( see, e.g., Bittrolff v. Ho's Dev. Corp., 77 N.Y.2d 896; Mullen v. Zoebe, Inc., 205 A.D.2d 597; see also, Stevens v. Northern Lights Assocs., 229 A.D.2d 1001). A narrow exception exists, however, and liability may be imposed where a dangerous condition existed at the time of the conveyance, and the new owner has not had a reasonable time to discover the condition if it was unknown, or to remedy the condition once it became known ( see, e.g., Bittrolff v. Ho's Dev. Corp., supra; Fisher v. Braun, 227 A.D.2d 586; Slomin v. Skaarland Constr. Corp., 207 A.D.2d 639; Brown v. O'Connor, 193 A.D.2d 1088).
There is no evidence that Tobias either created a dangerous condition or concealed it from Woodbine ( see, Lanthier v. Feroleto, 237 A.D.2d 877; O'Rourke v. Sachel Hardware, 178 A.D.2d 134; Perez v. City of New York, 168 A.D.2d 227). Accordingly, Tobias is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim insofar as asserted against him ( see, Jackson v. Endo Labs., 175 A.D.2d 798; Camillery v. Getty Ref Mktg. Co., 170 A.D.2d 567).
S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.