Boler v. Malik

*999that actual or constructive notice of the dangerous lead condition may be imputed to defendants because defendants were aware of chipping and peeling paint; defendants are both real estate brokers and landlords of other properties; defendant Paramjeet K. Malik is a registered nurse; and, before purchasing the subject property, she received mortgage documents for another property that referred to Federal lead based paint regulations (see, Smith v Saget, 258 AD2d 641, 641-642; Leeper v Brady & Burgess Mgt. Corp., 254 AD2d 695; Andrade v Wong, 251 AD2d 609, 609-610; Lanthier v Feroleto, 237 AD2d 877, 877-878). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Scudder, JJ.

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants met their initial burden, and “plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant [s], as plaintiff’s landlord [s], had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous lead paint condition for a sufficient period of time to have remedied it” (Arnold v Advantage Fed. Credit Union [appeal No. 2], 261 AD2d 939). We reject plaintiff’s contention