Landlord Had Notice of Lead Paint Condition

LVT Number: 12222

Tenant sued landlord, claiming her young child was seriously injured by lead paint in their apartment. Tenant asked the court to rule in her favor without holding a trial, claiming there were no facts in dispute. The court ruled for tenant. Tenant showed that her child was under the age of 7, that there were hazardous levels of lead-based paint in the apartment, that landlord had sufficient notice of both the presence of the child and the dangerous conditions, and that landlord didn't make a reasonable effort to correct the condition.

Tenant sued landlord, claiming her young child was seriously injured by lead paint in their apartment. Tenant asked the court to rule in her favor without holding a trial, claiming there were no facts in dispute. The court ruled for tenant. Tenant showed that her child was under the age of 7, that there were hazardous levels of lead-based paint in the apartment, that landlord had sufficient notice of both the presence of the child and the dangerous conditions, and that landlord didn't make a reasonable effort to correct the condition. Landlord's claim that they didn't know the child was in the apartment wasn't credible because tenant told them when she signed the initial lease and renewal leases. Tenant also complained to the building superintendent about lead paint chips in the apartment from shortly after the time she moved in. Two prior landlords had received Health Department orders to correct lead paint conditions in the apartment. Tenant claimed that the only repairs done in the apartment were inferior patchwork that didn't prevent the chipping and cracking of paint, which her baby ingested.

Tejeda v. 116 West Corp.: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 3 (3/6/98) (Sup. Ct. NY; Miller, J)