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.
Harpreet KAUR, etc., et al., respondents, v. Maria VELEZ, appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated December 14, 2007, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The infant plaintiffs, Harpreet Kaur and Hardeep Singh, and their parents, the plaintiffs Parmjit Singh and Kulwinder Kaur, commenced this action against the defendant, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries that the infant plaintiffs allegedly sustained as a result of their exposure to lead-based paint in an apartment owned by the defendant. The parents moved into the subject apartment building in January 2000. Harpreet Kaur was born on November 25, 2000, and Hardeep Singh was born on November 21, 2001. The parents testified at their depositions that they noticed chipping and flaking paint in the apartment in approximately November 2002. In October 2004, the infant plaintiffs were found to have elevated blood-lead levels and the New York City Department of Health subsequently found 50 lead-based paint violations in the subject apartment.
The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that: (1) the defendant had constructive notice of the hazardous lead condition in the apartment they occupied (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 27-2013[h], now §§ 27-2056.3, 27-2056.18; Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628, 642, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135; Duarte v. Community Realty Corp., 42 A.D.3d 480, 839 N.Y.S.2d 231), (2) the defendant did not take reasonable steps to remedy the hazardous lead condition (see Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d at 644-645, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135), and (3) the hazardous lead condition was the proximate cause of the infant plaintiffs' injuries (id. at 648, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
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 17, 2009
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)