Batts v. Intrebor, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Batts v. Intrebor, Inc.

297 A.D.2d 692, 747 N.Y.2d 537, 747 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8691

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 692 (Batts v. Intrebor, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Batts v. Intrebor, Inc., 297 A.D.2d 692, 747 N.Y.2d 537, 747 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The infant plaintiff, Donta Batts, allegedly suffered lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead paint in his apartment in a building owned by the defendant Lorenzo Distant. To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition (see Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9). Here, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Distant had constructive notice as a result of his actual notice of many conditions in the apartment indicating a lead paint hazard to young children (see Chapman v Silber, supra). Distant’s motion for summary judgment therefore should have been denied (see Brown v Paul, 290 AD2d 469). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The infant plaintiff, Donta Batts, allegedly suffered lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead paint in his apartment in a building owned by the defendant Lorenzo Distant. To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition (see Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9). Here, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Distant had constructive notice as a result of his actual notice of many conditions in the apartment indicating a lead paint hazard to young children (see Chapman v Silber, supra). Distant’s motion for summary judgment therefore should have been denied (see Brown v Paul, 290 AD2d 469). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 692, 747 N.Y.2d 537, 747 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batts-v-intrebor-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack