Roberts v. Pius

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roberts v. Pius

267 A.D.2d 292, 699 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12864

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 292 (Roberts v. Pius) 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

Roberts v. Pius, 267 A.D.2d 292, 699 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages [293]*293for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 11, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, notice of peeling paint is not notice of a hazardous lead condition (see, Andrade v Wong, 251 AD2d 609; Busto v Tamucci, 251 AD2d 441). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment (see, Brown v Marathon Realty, 170 AD2d 426).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages [293]*293for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated September 11, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, notice of peeling paint is not notice of a hazardous lead condition (see, Andrade v Wong, 251 AD2d 609; Busto v Tamucci, 251 AD2d 441). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment (see, Brown v Marathon Realty, 170 AD2d 426).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 292, 699 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-pius-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack