Jocelyn C. v. Soundview Apartments Realty, LLC

2017 NY Slip Op 7388, 154 A.D.3d 573, 62 N.Y.S.3d 273
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 24, 2017
Docket4764 350615/09
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7388 (Jocelyn C. v. Soundview Apartments Realty, LLC) 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
Jocelyn C. v. Soundview Apartments Realty, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 7388, 154 A.D.3d 573, 62 N.Y.S.3d 273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered April 22, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, in this action for personal injuries suffered as a result of exposure to lead-based paint, denied the motion of defendant landlord Soundview Apartment Realty, LLC (Soundview) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly determined that Soundview failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The record demonstrates that the subject building was constructed before 1960; that Soundview knew that a child younger than six resided in the apartment; and that Soundview had actual notice of a positive lead test in 2006 that it failed to remediate and that resulted in a February 2009 letter alerting it to the fact that the lead condition had not been addressed (see e.g. Rivera v Neighborhood Partnership Hous. Dev. Fund Co. Inc., 116 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2014]; Rivas v Danza, 68 AD3d 743 [2d Dept 2009]). The conclusion of Soundview’s expert that the positive lead paint test was too remote in time to establish proximate cause was insufficient to eliminate any issue of fact. The further conclusion of Soundview’s expert that the positive lead paint test was unreliable is disputed by, at the very least, the existence of a 2006 HPD violation.

We have considered Soundview’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Richter, Andrias, Gische and Moulton, JJ.

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

Related

Rivas v. Danza
68 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 7388, 154 A.D.3d 573, 62 N.Y.S.3d 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jocelyn-c-v-soundview-apartments-realty-llc-nyappdiv-2017.