of smoke from basement to apartment is covered by the pollution exclusion); Karroll v. Atomergic Chemetals Corp., 194 A.D.2d 715, 600 N.Y.S.2d 101 (2d Dep’t 1993) (accidental spraying of sulfuric acid was not covered by the pollution exclusion); and Henry Modell & Co. v. General Ins. Co. of Trieste & Venice, 193 A.D.2d 412, 597 N.Y.S.2d 75 (1st Dep’t 1993) (dust and debris in apartment resulting from subway construction project is covered by the pollution exclusion). The relevant trial court decisions are: B.U.D. Sheetmetal v. Massachusetts Ins. Co., No. 3513-93 (Sup.Ct.Albany County 1995) (indoor spraying of toxic cleaning solution was within pollution exclusion); General Accident Ins. Co. v. Idbar Realty Corp., 163 Misc.2d 809, 622 N.Y.S.2d 417, 419 (Sup.Ct.Suffolk County 1994) (<HOLDING>), aff'd as modified, — A.D.2d —, 646 N.Y.S.2d
holding lead paint poisoning covered by the pollution exclusion holding that the discharge of paint chips into soil was covered by the pollution exclusion because it polluted the environment but that the presence of lead paint in a household would not be so covered holding that the release of carbon monoxide into an apartment is not the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the pollution exclusion clause holding that pollution exclusion did not apply to claim arising from ingestion of lead paint because exclusion reasonably may be limited to environmental claims holding second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion