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.
Gerangel DUARTE, etc., at al., appellants, v. COMMUNITY REALTY CORPORATION, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), entered May 19, 2006, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to Local Law No. 1 (2004) of the City of New York (hereinafter Local Law 1), the owner of a multiple dwelling must remove or cover paint containing specified hazardous levels of lead in any apartment in which a child six years of age or younger resides (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. former § 27-2013[h], now §§ 27-2056.3, 27-2056.18; Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135; O'Neal v. New York City Hous. Auth., 4 A.D.3d 348, 771 N.Y.S.2d 548). Violation of Local Law 1, however, does not result in absolute liability (see Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, supra at 643, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135). To impose liability on a landlord for a lead-based paint condition, a plaintiff must establish that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been remedied (see Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, supra at 646, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135). In multiple dwellings located in the City of New York, constructive notice of a hazardous condition is presumed where the landlord has notice that a child under the age of six resides in the unit (see Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, supra at 647, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135; Chadwick v. Sabin, 304 A.D.2d 603, 603-604, 757 N.Y.S.2d 470).
Even if the defendants did not establish, prima facie, that the building was not a multiple dwelling, they nevertheless submitted evidence sufficient to establish that they did not have notice that a child under the age of six resided at the subject apartment before the infant plaintiff allegedly sustained any injuries. In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on this ground, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants had such notice.
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: July 17, 2007
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)