Contradictory HPD Reports on Whether Apartment Contained Lead Paint

Facts: Tenant sued landlord, claiming that her child was injured by lead paint in tenant's apartment. Tenant had lived in the apartment with her young child from 1985 until 1992. Landlord bought the building in 1991. Landlord claimed that it didn't have notice that tenant had a child. Landlord also pointed out that 1991 HPD records reported that any lead paint condition in the apartment had been fixed. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled against landlord. Landlord appealed. Court: Landlord loses. Landlord had hired prior landlord's building super when it bought the building. The super presumably knew there was a child in tenant's apartment, therefore landlord was deemed to know as well. And there was another HPD inspection in 1992 that showed evidence of lead paint from a fallen bathroom ceiling. It was unclear whether tenant advised landlord of the broken ceiling, but landlord didn't complete work to fix it until after tenant moved out. A trial was needed to determine whether landlord acted reasonably or was responsible for the lead paint condition in the apartment.

Ibert v. Tuscan Assocs., Inc.: NYLJ, 2/7/07, p. 27, col. 3 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Mazzarelli, JP, Friedman, Williams, McGuire, Malone, JJ)