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
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 23, 2002·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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).

297 A.D.2d 692 (Batts v. Intrebor, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rodriguez v. Trakansook
67 A.D.3d 768 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Jackson v. Brown
26 A.D.3d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Vidal v. Rodriquez
301 A.D.2d 517 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Aldrich v. County of Oneida
299 A.D.2d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
McCabe v. Hans
298 A.D.2d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)