Shafqat v. Blackman

16 A.D.3d 574, 792 N.Y.S.2d 141, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3037
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 21, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 574 (Shafqat v. Blackman) 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
Shafqat v. Blackman, 16 A.D.3d 574, 792 N.Y.S.2d 141, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated January 23, 2004, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that the infant plaintiffs suffered lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead paint while residing in the second floor rear apartment of the defendants’ two-family house.

To impose liability upon a landlord for a lead-based paint condition, a plaintiff must establish that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition (see Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9 [2001]; Chadwick v Sabin, 304 AD2d 603 [2003]; Batista v Mohabir, 291 AD2d 365 [2002]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the lead-based paint condition. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Chadwick v Sabin, supra; Batista v Mohabir, supra).

[575]*575The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Seye v. Sibbio
61 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Velez v. South Nine Realty Corp.
57 A.D.3d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Andujar v. Wylong
53 A.D.3d 465 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Clark v. Davis
52 A.D.3d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Alonso v. Coutinho Enterprises, LLC
35 A.D.3d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 A.D.3d 574, 792 N.Y.S.2d 141, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shafqat-v-blackman-nyappdiv-2005.