Jermain Stokely filed a personal-injury lawsuit because he believed his apartment had been negligently maintained and that the owner failed to properly address a lead-paint hazard.
While the Oneida County Supreme Court dismissed Jermain's case in its entirety, on appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, thought that the landlord hadn't addressed the kid's "negligent abatement claim" and opted to reinstate that part of the case. (It did agree, however, that Stokely hadn't shown that the owner was on notice of the defect.)
And because he presented no proof that he had been seen eating the paint fragments or that there had been peeling paint in the apartment, liability couldn't be established at this early stage of the case.
The AD4 sure "lead" the way there.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use the following link: Stokely v. Wright