Guzman v. 560 Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guzman v. 560 Realty Co.

303 A.D.2d 248, 755 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2753

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 248 (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., 303 A.D.2d 248, 755 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., and a jury), entered June 7, 2001, in favor of defendant-respondent and against plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Evidence at trial showed that only one blood lead test was taken during the period that the infant plaintiff’s residence in the subject building coincided with defendant’s ownership thereof, which test admittedly was not indicative of lead injury. The blood lead test that was indicative of lead injury was taken a year after defendant lost ownership of the building. Plaintiff had moved out of the building at or about the beginning of that [249]*249year period, and it was not until at least six months later that she moved back into another apartment. Such evidence fairly supports the jury’s finding (see Revill v Boston Post Rd. Dev. Corp., 293 AD2d 138, 142 [2002], appeal dismissed 98 NY2d 725 [2002]), made in response to a question posed in the trial court’s verdict sheet, that the infant plaintiff did not sustain a lead paint injury while defendant owned the building. Plaintiff’s challenge to the court’s charge as improperly combining the questions of negligence and proximate cause is not preserved for appellate review (CPLR 4110-b, 5501 [a] [3]), and, in any event, lacks merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J., and a jury), entered June 7, 2001, in favor of defendant-respondent and against plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Evidence at trial showed that only one blood lead test was taken during the period that the infant plaintiff’s residence in the subject building coincided with defendant’s ownership thereof, which test admittedly was not indicative of lead injury. The blood lead test that was indicative of lead injury was taken a year after defendant lost ownership of the building. Plaintiff had moved out of the building at or about the beginning of that [249]*249year period, and it was not until at least six months later that she moved back into another apartment. Such evidence fairly supports the jury’s finding (see Revill v Boston Post Rd. Dev. Corp., 293 AD2d 138, 142 [2002], appeal dismissed 98 NY2d 725 [2002]), made in response to a question posed in the trial court’s verdict sheet, that the infant plaintiff did not sustain a lead paint injury while defendant owned the building. Plaintiff’s challenge to the court’s charge as improperly combining the questions of negligence and proximate cause is not preserved for appellate review (CPLR 4110-b, 5501 [a] [3]), and, in any event, lacks merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 248, 755 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzman-v-560-realty-co-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack