Haider v. Rahim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haider v. Rahim

273 A.D.2d 442, 711 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7328

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

DecidedJune 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 442 (Haider v. Rahim) 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

Haider v. Rahim, 273 A.D.2d 442, 711 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated November 18, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Although the plaintiffs submitted evidence establishing that the defendant Nasir B. Rahim was aware of peeling and chipping paint within the subject premises, such knowledge does not establish notice that the premises contained lead-based paint (see, Andrade v Wong, supra). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated November 18, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Although the plaintiffs submitted evidence establishing that the defendant Nasir B. Rahim was aware of peeling and chipping paint within the subject premises, such knowledge does not establish notice that the premises contained lead-based paint (see, Andrade v Wong, supra). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 442, 711 N.Y.S.2d 751, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haider-v-rahim-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack