HINES GARRETT v. RAP REALTY CORP (1999)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered May 8, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

 The plaintiffs contend that the infant plaintiff suffered from lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead paint in a dwelling rented from the defendants.   However, there is no evidence that the defendants had actual notice of the hazardous lead condition (see, Andrade v. Wong, 251 A.D.2d 609, 675 N.Y.S.2d 112;  Brown v. Marathon Realty, 170 A.D.2d 426, 428, 565 N.Y.S.2d 219), or that the condition existed for a sufficient period of time that it should have been remedied in the exercise of reasonable care (see, Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135;  Brown v. Marathon Realty, supra, at 427, 565 N.Y.S.2d 219).

 Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention constructive notice cannot be imputed based on evidence of the widespread media reports addressing the prevalence of lead hazards in older dwellings (see, Andrade v. Wong, supra;  Brown v. Marathon Realty, supra).   Notice of peeling paint, or that a dwelling requires painting, is not indicative of notice of a hazardous lead condition (see, Busto v. Tamucci, 251 A.D.2d 441, 674 N.Y.S.2d 406;  Lanthier v. Feroleto, 237 A.D.2d 877, 654 N.Y.S.2d 531).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.