Lead-Based Paint
Case Law

QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT: Can a landlord be liable for lead poisoning that happened before receiving health department notice of lead-based paint condition?

FACTS: Allison, her I-year-old son, and her 10-year-old daughter lived in a New York apartment they rented from Bay Realty Corp.

About a year after they moved in, the son's blood test showed high levels of lead. Allison reported the test results to the city's lead prevention program, and the health department sent an investigator. Tests of paint in the apartment revealed violations on the doors, windowsills, and radiator.

The health department sent the landlord an order to abate, informing the landlord of the lead violations and that a child under age 7 lived in the apartment. The order gave the landlord five days to fix the problem.

Wolfe, one of the landlord's employees, called the health department to find out how he could fix the problem. He said he hired a contractor who worked in the apartment for about a week. A second inspection, however, showed violations remained. According to Wolfe, the health department told him the job was 80 to 90 percent complete. The health department finished the job.

Allison sued the landlord, claiming its negligence caused her son severe and permanent injuries. She asked the court to decide without a trial that the landlord was liable, saying the high lead levels in the apartment proved the apartment was dangerous. Allison also claimed the landlord knew a young child lived in the apartment.

New York City's "Local Law I" was passed as a response to the problem of lead paint poisoning. The law created a presumption that in any multiple residence built before 1960 where a child aged 6 or under lived, the paint contained hazardous levels of lead. Under the law, the existence of lead paint above the threshold level was an "immediately hazardous violation."

The landlord claimed a trial was needed to determine whether it should be held liable. It argued any liability should be based on the reasonableness of the steps it took to correct the problem after learning about it.

Wolfe testified he knew Allison's son lived in the apartment and that he 11 probably" knew the son was under age 7 when he first moved in. Wolfe also testified he installed window guards in the apartment as required in all apartments where children under age 10 lived.

DECISION: Judgment without a trial granted to tenant. There was no question the landlord was liable for Allison's son's lead paint poisoning.

Based on the presumptions outlined in Local Law 1, the landlord should have known, before getting notice from the health department, that Allison's apartment contained hazardous levels of lead: The building apparently was built before 1960, and Wolfe knew Allison's young son lived there. That knowledge was enough to subject the landlord to liability, regardless of what it did after it got the department's notice. It didn't matter whether the steps the landlord took were reasonable, because they should have been taken as soon as the landlord knew a young child would be living in the apartment.

Also see: Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., 672 N.E.2d 135 (New York).