From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Randolph v. St. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1999
258 A.D.2d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

February 22, 1999

Appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-2013 (h) creates a rebuttable presumption that in any apartment in a multiple dwelling erected in the City of New York before 1960, in which a child who is six years of age or under resides, any peeling paint or similar surface-coating material comprises a hazardous lead condition ( see, Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628, 647). In the case at bar, there was no proof that a child age six or under resided at the subject apartment.

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J. P., RITTER, THOMPSON and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Randolph v. St. Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 1999
258 A.D.2d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Randolph v. St. Hill

Case Details

Full title:ELLAS RANDOLPH, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, LESLIE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 22, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 638 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 802

Citing Cases

Singh v. Rajkumar

The Supreme Court properly addressed the merits of the motion of the defendants Siddarth Sapra and Kashmir…

Hiraldo v. Khan

Contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiffs established their entitlement to a jury charge on the…