From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vazquez v. Prevosto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 2, 2002
300 A.D.2d 299 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-07967

Argued October 7, 2002.

December 2, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated July 5, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants Bibi Murenza Garcia and Fazal Mohamed for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Michael Stewart Frankel, New York, N.Y. (Richard H. Bliss of counsel), for appellants.

Shapiro, Beilly, Rosenberg, Aronowitz, Levy Fox, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Roy J. Karlin of counsel), for respondents.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiffs allegedly suffered lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead paint while residing in a number of residences, including the one leased by their family from the defendants Bibi Murenza Garcia and Fazal Mohamed (hereinafter collectively referred to as the defendant landlords). To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must establish that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition (see Chapman v. Silber, 97 N.Y.2d 9; Patterson v. Brennan, 292 A.D.2d 582). The defendant landlords correctly contend that they cannot be charged with constructive notice of the alleged lead-paint condition pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York, since the building is not a multiple dwelling (see Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628).

Furthermore, the defendant landlords made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through submission of evidence demonstrating that they had neither actual nor constructive notice of a lead-based paint condition in the premises. Since the plaintiffs' opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning notice, the defendant landlords' motion was properly granted (see Batista v. Mohabir, 291 A.D.2d 365).

SMITH, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Vazquez v. Prevosto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 2, 2002
300 A.D.2d 299 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Vazquez v. Prevosto

Case Details

Full title:ESTEFANY VAZQUEZ, ETC., ET AL., appellants, v. CELIO PREVOSTO, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 2, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 299 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 291

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. Trakansook

However, the alleged factual issues must be genuine and not feigned ( Gervasio v. DiNapoli, 134 AD2d 235 [2d…

Chadwick v. Sabin

4; Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, supra at 647). The defendant landlords made a prima facie showing of…