Trial Needed to Determine If Tenants' Child Was Injured by Lead Paint Exposure

Tenants, the parents of a child who lived in their apartment, sued landlord for injuries to the child that they claimed were the result of lead paint in the unit. The court denied tenants' request for a ruling without trial that landlord's liability and caused the injury, finding that a trial was needed to determine the facts.

Tenants appealed and lost. They claimed that landlord was responsible based on its failure to comply with the turnover provision of Local Law 1 of 2004. But even if landlord's failure to comply provided some proof of its negligence, triable issues of fact existed as to whether the child's lead exposure proximately caused her claimed injuries. Although tenants' expert stated that the child's chronic exposure to high concentrations of lead was a cause of her headaches and inhibited the production of "heme" (a component of hemoglobin), the child presented with an average IQ and her school records reflected that she exceeded grade level expectations during the 2022-23 school year. Landlord's expert, who also examined the child, found no evidence that she sustained any medical, neurobehavioral, academic, or cognitive effect in function as a result of lead exposure. Tenants argued that heme inhibition was itself a physical injury sufficient to maintain their claims. But their expert's assertions were conclusory, without describing what was meant by or occurred in heme inhibition. There was no opinion presented that the child actually experienced the claimed damaging effects associated with heme inhibition or that it produced physical symptoms. 

J.A. v. Mandy Assoc., LLC: Index No. 27470/18, App. No. 3822, Case No. 2024-05063, 2025 NY Slip Op 02055 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 4/8/25; Kern, JP, Mendez, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, Higgitt, JJ)