Landlord Knew of Lead Paint Dangers

Facts: The question for the Court of Appeals in two cases was what proof of notice a tenant in a lead paint poisoning case must show to prevent dismissal of a case without a trial. In the Chapman case, tenants and their young child moved into a downstairs apartment in 1994. A year later, their child tested for high lead levels in his blood. Tenants' lease stated that tenant must maintain the apartment and make all repairs. The lease also permitted landlord to enter and make repairs. Landlord painted the apartment before tenants moved in, but within a year paint was chipped and peeling around the window sills and porch area. Tenants complained, and landlord paid tenants to repaint the porch. Landlord lived upstairs from tenants. In the Stover case, tenant moved in while pregnant. She also had a 5-year-old son. Fifteen months later, her younger child was hospitalized for lead paint poisoning. Tenant never complained to landlord about peeling paint, although she saw the baby put paint chips in his mouth. Landlord said he didn't know tenant had children until some time after she moved in. He made any repairs tenant requested. Court: A question for trial is raised when tenant shows that landlord: 1) had a right to enter the apartment and a duty to make repairs; 2) knew that the apartment was built at a time before lead-based paint was banned; 3) was aware that paint was peeling at the building; 4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children; and 5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment. In the Chapman case, tenant raised an issue of fact as to landlord's notice of a high degree of risk that a dangerous lead paint hazard existed. So the appeal court's dismissal of the case was reversed. In Stover, tenant didn't raise a question of fact, and dismissal of that case was proper.

Chapman v. Silber/Stover v. Robilotto: NYLJ, 11/16/01, p. 18, col. 5 (Ct. App. NY; Ciparick, J)