PEGGY JUAREZ, AN INFANT &C., ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. WAVECREST MANAGEMENT
TEAM LTD., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND MAYAGHOR REALTY INC., APPELLANT.
88 N.Y.2d 628, 672 N.E.2d 135, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115 (1996).
July 2, 1996
(Case Commentary by Editorial Board)
1 No. 130 (1996 NY Int. 153)
Decided July 2, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Sheila L. Birnbaum, for Appellant.
Richard H. Bliss, for Respondents.
City of New York; The Rent Stabilization Association of N.Y.C., Inc.;
Nationwide Insurance Company; American Insurance Association; New York
City Housing Authority; Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation et al.;
Calvert Insurance Company; New York City Coalition to End Lead
Poisoning, et al., amici curiae.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
This case, brought on behalf of a child suffering from lead
poisoning, presents our first opportunity to consider the liability of
a landlord who has allegedly failed to comply with the lead abatement
provision of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. That
provision, Local Law 1, requires the owner of a multiple dwelling to
"remove or cover" paint containing specified hazardous levels of lead
in any apartment in which a child six years of age or younger resides
(Administrative Code of the City of New York § 27-2013(h)). We are
asked: does Local Law 1 obligate building owners to ascertain whether
such a child resides in any of the dwelling units and then to inspect
those units for dangerous lead conditions?
We hold that to establish liability plaintiffs must demonstrate that
the building owner had actual or constructive notice that a child six
years of age or under was living in one of its residential units.
Under the statutory scheme, a landlord who has such notice is
chargeable with notice of any hazardous lead condition in that unit.
Here, defendant-landlord has failed to contest plaintiffs'
allegations that a lead hazard existed in the apartment and that
defendant made no attempt to remedy it. Defendant has also failed to
rebut plaintiffs' prima facie showing of causation. Thus, no triable
SNIPPETS:
City of New York; The Rent Stabilization Association of N.Y.C., Inc.; Nationwide Insurance
This case, brought on behalf of a child suffering from lead poisoning, presents our first
That provision, Local Law 1, requires the owner of a multiple dwelling to "remove or cover"
does Local Law 1 obligate building owners to ascertain whether such a child resides in any of
We hold that to establish liability plaintiffs must demonstrate that the building owner had
defendant-landlord has failed to contest plaintiffs' allegations that a lead hazard existed
Thus, no triable issues exist regarding defendant's constructive notice of the hazard, the
Defendant Mayaghor Realty obtained title to the building at 2295 Morris Avenue in the Bronx
Nevertheless, in October 1987, plaintiff Noemi Juarez and her two infant daughters sublet
two-year-old plaintiff Peggy Juarez began complaining of stomach pain and exhibiting
Nevertheless, a subsequent Health Department inspection report showed that, as of October 19,
Although the trial court rejected this argument, it granted plaintiffs' motion nonetheless,
The serious health hazard posed to children by exposure to lead-based paint is by now well
High blood lead levels can produce brain damage, coma or death, and even relatively low
Fund Co., 69 NY2d 559, 565-566; Worth Distributors, Inc. v Latham, 59 NY2d 231, 238).
Correlative with the specific obligation to abate a hazardous lead condition, Local Law 1
Furthermore, while Local Law 1 is unquestionably intended to protect a definite class of
Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
|
