Guzman v. 560 Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guzman v. 560 Realty Co.

273 A.D.2d 25, 708 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6365

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

DecidedJune 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 25 (Guzman v. 560 Realty Co.) 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

Guzman v. 560 Realty Co., 273 A.D.2d 25, 708 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered on or about October 19, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment in this action to recover for injuries allegedly attributable to the infant plaintiffs ingestion of lead paint on defendants-appellants’ premises was properly denied. The record indicates that while defendant prior owners were still in possession and control of 560 West 165th Street, a build[26]*26ing constructed before 1960, they had notice that the infant plaintiff, then a child under seven years of age, resided in a room in the building and, thus, were chargeable with notice of any hazardous lead condition in that room (see, Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628, 647, citing Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2013 [h]). Defendants submitted no evidence that they acted reasonably and in accordance with 28 RCNY 11-04 to abate whatever lead condition existed in the room. In fact, the evidence of record indicates that they merely repainted the room. We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ. (See, 175 Misc 2d 969.]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered on or about October 19, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment in this action to recover for injuries allegedly attributable to the infant plaintiffs ingestion of lead paint on defendants-appellants’ premises was properly denied. The record indicates that while defendant prior owners were still in possession and control of 560 West 165th Street, a build[26]*26ing constructed before 1960, they had notice that the infant plaintiff, then a child under seven years of age, resided in a room in the building and, thus, were chargeable with notice of any hazardous lead condition in that room (see, Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628, 647, citing Administrative Code of City of NY § 27-2013 [h]). Defendants submitted no evidence that they acted reasonably and in accordance with 28 RCNY 11-04 to abate whatever lead condition existed in the room. In fact, the evidence of record indicates that they merely repainted the room. We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ. (See, 175 Misc 2d 969.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 25, 708 N.Y.S.2d 403, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzman-v-560-realty-co-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack