You are here: / / DEFENDANT, WHO CO-OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, DEMONSTRATED...
,

DEFENDANT, WHO CO-OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS LEAD PAINT CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this lead-paint exposure case should have been granted. Defendant was a co-owner of the subject property but he was able to demonstrate his connection to the property was such that he did not have actual or constructive notice of the hazardous lead paint condition:

… [D]efendant owned the subject property, as a tenant in common, with his father during the period of plaintiffs’ tenancy from 1992 to 1994. In support of his motions, defendant submitted his affidavit, wherein he averred, among other things, that he was a co-owner of the property “on paper only,” that his father handled all day-to-day maintenance of the property, and that defendant never entered plaintiffs’ apartments or hired anyone to make repairs thereto during plaintiffs’ tenancy. Defendant further averred that he did not have a key to the apartments and that he never spoke to or received complaints from plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ mother. Defendant’s submissions also established that he had no knowledge of inspections for or the existence of lead paint at the property during plaintiffs’ tenancy and that he was unaware that the property was constructed at a time before lead paint was banned, that paint was peeling at the property, that lead paint posed a danger to young children, and that young children lived on the property.

Regardless of whether defendant’s father had actual or constructive notice through his own involvement with the property, that notice cannot be imputed to defendant absent evidence of defendant’s own actual or constructive notice … . McDowell v Maldovan, 2020 NY Slip Op 01748, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

You might also like
WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT).
THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATION ORDER (QDRO) AS DESCRIBED IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE CANNOT BE MODIFIED BY THE COURT; NO APPEAL LIES OF RIGHT FROM A QDRO, AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL MUST BE MADE (FOURTH DEPT).
CORPORATE OFFICER MAY BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 853 (FOURTH DEPT).
AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, THE SHERIFF’S DEPUTY WAS ENGAGED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATION AND DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT).
DOWNPAYMENT NOT FORFEITED BASED UPON THE BANK’S REVOCATION OF THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT, NO SHOWING THE REVOCATION WAS DUE TO DEFENDANT PURCHASER’S BAD FAITH (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THOSE ASPECTS OF THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS ISSUE WAS NOT ABANDONED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment of Divorce Should Have Been Granted Even Though Defendant First Appeared and Then Withdrew

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WHERE THERE IS A DISCREPANCY THE ORDER MUST BE CONFORMED WITH THE DECISION (FOURTH... CONTRARY TO SUPREME COURT’S RULING, THE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT INCLUDE...