| Rodriguez v Trakansook |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08205 [67 AD3d 768] |
| November 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Pedro Rodriguez et al., Appellants, v NongyawTrakansook, Respondent. |
—[*1] Daniel D. Baek, Bayside, N.Y., for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated July 9, 2008, which granted the defendant'smotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The infant plaintiffs allegedly suffered lead poisoning as a result of exposure to lead paintwhile residing in a two-family house owned by the defendant. The Supreme Court granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that thedefendant established that she had no notice of the hazardous condition. We affirm.
To establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstratethat the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy,the hazardous condition (see Chapman v Silber, 97 NY2d 9 [2001]; Vidal vRodriquez, 301 AD2d 517, 517-518 [2003]; McCabe v Hans, 298 AD2d 565, 566[2002]; Batts v Intrebor, Inc., 297 AD2d 692 [2002]).
The defendant met her initial burden of demonstrating that she had no prior actual orconstructive notice of a dangerous lead-paint condition (see Vidal v Rodriquez, 301AD2d at 518; McCabe v Hans, 298 AD2d at 565-566; see generally Alvarez vProspect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In response, the affidavit of the injured plaintiffs' mother wasinsufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, because it constituted an attempt to avoid theconsequences of her earlier deposition testimony by raising feigned issues of fact (see [*2]Karwowski v New York City Tr. Auth., 44 AD3d 826,827 [2007]; Stancil v SupermarketsGen., 16 AD3d 402 [2005]; Christopher v New York City Tr. Auth., 300 AD2d336 [2002]; Bongiorno v Penske Auto. Ctr., 289 AD2d 520, 521 [2001]; Bloom v LaFemme Fatale of Smithtown, 273 AD2d 187 [2000]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Eng andLeventhal, JJ., concur. [See 2008 NY Slip Op 32077(U).]