Majority
—In an action to recover damages for personal
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The infant plaintiffs allegedly suffered lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead paint while residing in a number of residences, including the one leased by their family from the defendants Bibi Murenza Garcia and Fazal Mohamed (hereinafter collectively referred to as the defendant landlords). To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-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 ; Patterson v Brennan, 292 AD2d 582 ). The defendant landlords correctly contend that they cannot be charged with constructive notice of the alleged lead-paint condition pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York, since the building is not a multiple dwelling (see Juarez v Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 NY2d 628 ).
Furthermore, the defendant landlords made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through submission of evidence demonstrating that they had neither actual nor constructive notice of a lead-based paint condition in the premises. Since the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning notice, the defendant landlords’ motion was properly granted (see Batista v Mohabir, 291 AD2d 365 ). Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Chapman v. Silber 97 NY2d 9 p. 300
- Patterson v. Brennan 292 AD2d 582 p. 300
- Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd. 88 NY2d 628 p. 300
- Batista v. Mohabir 291 AD2d 365 p. 300