Occupant Lived in Super's Apartment
LVT Number: 18305
Facts: An apartment was occupied by the building's super, who allowed her friend and the friend's child to live with her, rent free. Landlord City of New York sent super a lead paint notice in January 1993. Super answered ''no'' to questions on the notice form asking if there was peeling paint in the apartment and whether a child under age seven lived there. Both answers were incorrect. Super's friend later sued landlord because her child had lead paint poisoning. The child had eaten paint chips in the apartment. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that it had no knowledge that there was peeling paint or that a child lived in the apartment. Court: Landlord loses. Landlord argued that the super wasn't acting as landlord's agent when she let the child move in, and that she lied on the lead paint notice form. Landlord also claimed that the super wasn't directly employed by landlord. She was employed by a security company that had a contract with landlord. But landlord supervised the super's work. So it was her employer. And because the super was landlord's agent, landlord is considered to be on notice that the child was in the apartment, even if the super never told landlord. A hearing would be held on the amount of damages landlord owed occupant for her child's injuries.
Moya v. City of New York: NYLJ, 8/10/05, p. 19, col. 3 (Sup. Ct. Kings; Partnow, J)