Roberts v. Pius

267 A.D.2d 292, 699 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12864
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 1999·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages [293] for 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

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).

267 A.D.2d 292 (Roberts v. Pius) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chapman v. Silber
275 A.D.2d 122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Andrade v. Orsini
273 A.D.2d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Cordero v. Poschmann
272 A.D.2d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)