Summary
In Cunningham v. Spitz, 218 AD2d 639 [2nd Dept 1995], the Appellate Division, Second Department held that "notwithstanding the fact that [plaintiff's] blood-lead level did not fall within scientifically accepted definitions of lead poisoning..." plaintiff had raised triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was injured as a result of his exposure to lead.
Summary of this case from DOMINGUEZ v. GIL SMALL REALTYOpinion
August 7, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs raise triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff Elton Cunningham was injured as a result of his exposure to lead, notwithstanding the fact that his blood-lead level did not fall within scientifically accepted definitions of lead poisoning. The allegation is not that Elton Cunningham suffered lead poisoning but that as a result of his exposure to lead he was injured (see, German v. Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp., 885 F. Supp. 537). Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly denied (see, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320).
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.