Roberts v. Pius
Opinion of the Court
—In an action to recover damages
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, notice of peeling paint is not notice of a hazardous lead condition (see, Andrade v Wong, 251 AD2d 609; Busto v Tamucci, 251 AD2d 441). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment (see, Brown v Marathon Realty, 170 AD2d 426).
The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.