Haider v. Rahim (273 A.D.2d 442, 2000)

Neelim Haider et al., Respondents, v Nasir A. Rahim et al., Appellants.

[711 NYS2d 751]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barron, J.), dated November 18, 1999, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiffs contend that the infant plaintiff, Neelim Haider, suffered lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead paint in a two-family house leased from the defendants. In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to lay bare their proof as to the defendants’ actual or constructive notice of the lead paint hazard (see, Andrade v Wong, 251 AD2d 609). The plaintiffs failed to discharge this burden.

Although the plaintiffs submitted evidence establishing that the defendant Nasir B. Rahim was aware of peeling and chipping paint within the subject premises, such knowledge does not establish notice that the premises contained lead-based paint (see, Andrade v Wong, supra). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.