Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Debora ESTEVES, et al., respondents-appellants, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, appellant-respondent.

Decided: November 29, 1999

FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, ANITA R. FLORIO and ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Alan Kaminsky and Cynthia A. Holfester of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Tolmage, Peskin, Harris & Falick (Seligson, Rothman & Rothman, New York, N.Y. [Martin S. Rothman, Stephan Peskin, and Alyne I. Diamond] of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered June 19, 1998, which, upon a jury verdict finding it 100% at fault and awarding the plaintiffs damages in the principal sum of $500,000, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal from the same judgment on the ground of inadequacy.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the plaintiffs proved that the apartment in which the infant plaintiff lived, including the walls of her bedroom, had been painted with lead paint that was peeling, and that such paint was the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's lead poisoning and the injuries she suffered.   The plaintiffs' proof was neither insufficient as a matter of law nor against the weight of the evidence (see, Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 N.Y.2d 493, 410 N.Y.S.2d 282, 382 N.E.2d 1145;  Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 495 N.Y.S.2d 184).

The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.


Copied to clipboard