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.
Nahshawn SMITH, etc., et al., respondents, v. Nicholas SAGET, et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated January 9, 1998, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants alleging that the infant plaintiff Nahshawn Smith suffered injuries due to lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead-based paint in premises leased from the defendants.
In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the defendants had actual or constructive notice of a lead-based paint hazard in the demised premises for a period of time sufficient to have remedied it (see, Andrade v. Wong, 251 A.D.2d 609, 675 N.Y.S.2d 112; Brown v. Marathon Realty, 170 A.D.2d 426, 565 N.Y.S.2d 219). The plaintiffs' allegation that the defendants were told about peeling and chipping paint within the demised premises, and the fact that, at the time, there were newspaper articles on the general dangers of lead-based paint was insufficient to establish that the defendants had actual or constructive notice that the subject premises contained a lead-based paint hazard (see, Andrade v. Wong, supra; Lanthier v. Feroleto, 237 A.D.2d 877, 654 N.Y.S.2d 531; Brown v. Marathon Realty, supra).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: February 22, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)