Trial Required on Lead Poisoning Claim

LVT Number: 16042

Tenant sued landlord after her baby was diagnosed with lead poisoning. Landlord had bought and renovated the building in 1980. Tenant lived there between 1991 and 1993. Her baby was born in 1991. Landlord claimed there was no lead paint hazard in the apartment. Inspections showed this was true but that there was exposed lead paint in some common areas and outside the building. Landlord also claimed it had no notice of any lead paint condition. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and won.

Tenant sued landlord after her baby was diagnosed with lead poisoning. Landlord had bought and renovated the building in 1980. Tenant lived there between 1991 and 1993. Her baby was born in 1991. Landlord claimed there was no lead paint hazard in the apartment. Inspections showed this was true but that there was exposed lead paint in some common areas and outside the building. Landlord also claimed it had no notice of any lead paint condition. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and won. Tenant showed there was a fact question as to whether landlord had notice of a lead paint hazard in the building's common areas. Tenant showed that landlord knew that the apartment was built before lead paint was banned, knew the hazards of lead paint to young children, knew that a young child lived in the apartment, retained control over and access to the building's common areas and knew or should have known that there was visible chipping or peeling paint for a while in the common areas.

Wynn v. T.R.I.P. Redevelopment Assocs.: NYLJ, 7/19/02, p. 18, col. 1 (App. Div.3 Dept.; Cardona, PJ, Crew, Spain, Carpinello, Rose, JJ)