Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Case Digests / Appellate Division, Fourth Dept. / Fourth Department — Lead Paint: Stokely v. Wright, et al.

Fourth Department — Lead Paint: Stokely v. Wright, et al.

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Lead Paint

Summary Judgment — Proof of Ingestion or Peeling Paint

Stokely v. Wright, et al.
CA 13-00617
Appealed from Supreme Court, Oneida County

Background: The plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained as a result of his exposure to lead paint as a child in two apartments in which he resided. The plaintiff appealed from the grant of summary judgment in favor of one of the landlords.

Ruling: The Appellate Division found that the landlord met his burden of establishing that he had no actual or constructive notice of the hazardous lead paint condition. However, the landlord failed to address the issue of negligent abatement requiring reinstatement of this cause of action. In addition, the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment as there was no proof submitted that showed him ingesting paint fragments in the defendants’ premises or that peeling paint was observed in the defendants’ premises prior to the plaintiff’s diagnosis.

Mo Athari of Athari & Associates for the plaintiff-appellant; John D. Goldman of Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet for the defendant-respondent Douglas Wright; V. Christopher Potenza of Hurwitz & Fine for the defendant-respondent Alonzo Gadsden