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.
AMANDA MCDONALD AND IAN POWER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF MADELINE POWER, MINOR, PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS, v. LOU FARINA, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by their daughter as a result of her ingestion of lead paint in an apartment owned by defendant. Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Contrary to defendant's contention, he failed to meet his initial burden on the motion, and we therefore conclude that Supreme Court properly denied it.
The complaint, insofar as relevant here, alleged that defendant was negligent in his ownership and maintenance of the premises by allowing the dangerous lead paint condition to exist, and that defendant knew, or should have known, that the dangerous condition existed. Defendant, as the party seeking summary judgment, bore the initial burden of establishing that he did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, or a reasonable opportunity to remedy it, prior to the time that plaintiffs' daughter allegedly ingested the lead paint (see generally Pagan v. Rafter, 107 AD3d 1505, 1507; Hines v Double D & S Realty Mgt. Corp., 106 AD3d 1171, 1172–1174, lv denied 22 NY3d 852; Williamson v. Ringuett, 85 AD3d 1427, 1428–1429). Defendant contends that he met his initial burden of demonstrating that he had no actual or constructive notice of the peeling lead-based paint before plaintiffs' daughter exhibited elevated lead levels in her blood and, therefore, he did not have a reasonable opportunity to remedy the condition. We reject that contention. With respect to actual and constructive notice, “[t]he [five] factors set forth in Chapman v. Silber (97 N.Y.2d 9, 20–21 [2001] ) remain the bases for determining whether a landlord knew or should have known of the existence of a hazardous lead[-]paint condition and thus may be held liable in a lead[-]paint case” (Watson v. Priore, 104 AD3d 1304, 1305, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 21 NY3d 1052). Inasmuch as the evidence that defendant submitted in support of his motion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact with respect to the five Chapman factors, we conclude that the court properly denied the motion, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: CA 13–02098
Decided: July 11, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)