An issue of fact exists as to whether defendant, aware of peeling paint in its building constructed before 1960, could reasonably have foreseen danger to children using the building as a preschool ( see, Serrano v. Spengler, 96 A.D.2d 935, 936-937; Day v. Johnson, 265 App. Div. 383, 387). While the prohibition against lead paint in day care centers (24 RCNY 47.44) was not in effect during the period of plaintiff's alleged exposure, its prohibition in dwellings has been in effect since 1960 ( see, Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628, 641), and we leave to the fact finder to determine whether knowledge of the hazard of lead paint to children should be imputed to defendant. We have considered defendant's other arguments, including that no issues of fact exist as to whether its alleged failure to abate a known hazard contributed to plaintiff's injuries, and find them to be without merit ( see, Ravo v. Rogatnick, 70 N.Y.2d 305, 310).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.