Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Tony VELOZ, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. REFIKA REALTY CO., etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Bronx Associates in Pediatrics, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered April 1, 2005, which, in an action for injuries allegedly caused by lead poisoning, granted motions by defendants building owner, hospital and pediatrician for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant building owner showed good cause for its delay in moving for summary judgment.
Through its expert's affirmation, the owner established its entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the infant plaintiff did not suffer any physical or cognitive injuries stemming from the alleged lead poisoning, thus shifting the burden to plaintiffs to raise an issue of fact. Plaintiffs' expert's affirmation failed to do so. For example, he states that impairments similar to those he saw in the infant plaintiff-sequencing movements in assembling multi-component objects, visuospatial memory and speed of processing visual information, all in association with normal functioning in other neuropsychological domains-“have been described as sequelae of early childhood exposure to lead.” However, the expert does not cite any particular scientific literature, nor does he identify which impairments were so described, who so described them, the similarity of those so described to those he saw in plaintiff, and at what level of exposure to lead such impairments have been observed. He thus fails to support either the general proposition that early exposure to lead results in such impairments or his specific conclusion that plaintiff's early exposure resulted in the impairments he saw (see Buchholz v. Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC, 5 N.Y.3d 1, 8-9, 798 N.Y.S.2d 715, 831 N.E.2d 960 [2005]; cf. Andon v. 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 N.Y.2d 740, 746, 709 N.Y.S.2d 873, 731 N.E.2d 589 [2000] ). Plaintiffs' argument that courts have recognized that low blood lead levels can be injurious (citing Williamsburg Around the Bridge Block Assn. v. Giuliani, 223 A.D.2d 64, 66, 644 N.Y.S.2d 252 [1996]; Matter of New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. Vallone, 100 N.Y.2d 337, 342-343, 763 N.Y.S.2d 530, 794 N.E.2d 672 [2003] ), and that lead ingestion can cause injury by impairing heme synthesis (citing, inter alia, Vega v. S.S.A. Props., Inc., 13 A.D.3d 298, 301, 788 N.Y.S.2d 28 [2004] ), improperly substitutes findings and comments in judicial decisions for evidence that impairments like those alleged here can be caused by low blood lead levels.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 13, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)