Tenants Seek Medical Monitoring for Mold Exposure

Former tenants of a luxury apartment complex in Westbury, N.Y., sued landlord after landlord terminated their leases. Landlord claimed that tenants had to move out because water intrusion at the building caused mold in spaces between the inner and outer walls of the building. Landlord said that extensive reconstruction work was needed. Although tenants started the case in state court, landlord got it moved to federal court. Among other things, tenants demanded that landlord pay for medical monitoring. Tenants also claimed that landlord had engaged in deceptive practices in violation of General Business Law Section 349. Landlord asked the court to dismiss these portions of tenants' claims without a trial.
The court ruled against landlord. Landlord claimed that New York courts didn't allow a claim for medical monitoring. But this was incorrect. The case involved exposure to toxic materials, and New York courts have allowed such claims in prior cases. Tenants claimed to have reasonable fear of a serious illness from living in apartments infested with mold or elevated levels of bacteria. Tenants can maintain their claim that they will need ongoing screening, treatment, and preventive medical care as a result of mold exposure. Tenants also can pursue their claim for deceptive practices. Landlord claimed that GBL Section 349 applied only to general consumer actions. But tenants claimed that landlord continued to market and advertise apartments, and continued to sign new leases or renewal leases, even after discovering the water infiltration and mold-growth problems at the complex. Landlord didn't disclose these problems to potential renters.

Sorrentino v. ASN Roosevelt Center, LLC: 2008 WL 4410369, Docket No. 08CV0550(9/29/08) (E.D.N.Y.; Spatt, DJ)