Veloz v. Refika Realty Co.

38 A.D.3d 299, 831 N.Y.S.2d 399
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 13, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by249 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 299 (Veloz v. Refika Realty Co.) 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
Veloz v. Refika Realty Co., 38 A.D.3d 299, 831 N.Y.S.2d 399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered April 1, 2005, which, in an action for injuries allegedly caused by lead po isoning, granted motions by defendants building owner, hospital and pediatrician for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant building owner showed good cause for its delay in moving for summary judgment.

Through its expert’s affirmation, the owner established its entitlement to summary judgment on the ground that the infant plaintiff did not suffer any physical or cognitive injuries stemming from the alleged lead poisoning, thus shifting the burden to plaintiffs to raise an issue of fact. Plaintiffs’ expert’s affirmation failed to do so. For example, he states that impairments similar to those he saw in the infant plaintiff—sequencing movements in assembling multicomponent objects, visuospatial memory and speed of processing visual information, all in association with normal functioning in other neuropsychological domains—“have been described as sequelae of early childhood exposure to lead.” However, the expert does not cite any particular scientific literature, nor does he identify which impairments were so described, who so described them, the similarity of those so described to those he saw in plaintiff, and at what level of exposure to lead such impairments have been observed. He thus fails to support either the general proposition that early exposure to lead results in such impairments or his specific conclusion that plaintiffs early exposure resulted in the impairments he saw (see Buchholz v Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC, 5 NY3d 1, 8-9 [2005]; cf. Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 746 [2000]). Plaintiffs’ argument that courts have recognized that low blood lead levels can be injurious (citing Williamsburg Around the Bridge Block Assn. v Giuliani, 223 AD2d 64, 66 [1996]; Matter of New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v Vallone, 100 NY2d 337, 342-343 [2003]), and that lead ingestion can cause injury by impairing heme synthesis (citing, inter alia, Vega v S.S.A. Props., Inc., 13 AD3d 298, 301 [2004]), improperly substitutes findings and comments in judicial decisions for evidence that impairments like those alleged here can be caused by low blood lead levels. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Buckley, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Related

J.A. v. Mandy Assoc., LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 02035 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Hannah v. Lanpher
2019 NY Slip Op 7187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Brown v. Webb-Weber
2018 NY Slip Op 3478 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Adrian T. Ex Rel. Filiberta T. v. Millshan Realty Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 1122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
RODRIGUES, MARILYN v. LESSER, ROBERT
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Rodrigues v. Lesser
136 A.D.3d 1322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Szewczuk v. Stellar 117 Garth, LLC
541 F. App'x 30 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Whitehouse v. Priority Home Care, Inc.
95 A.D.3d 703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Cunningham v. Anderson
85 A.D.3d 1370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Kodjovi v. Trustees of Columbia University
80 A.D.3d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Bygrave v. New York City Housing Authority
65 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.3d 299, 831 N.Y.S.2d 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veloz-v-refika-realty-co-nyappdiv-2007.