Landlord Is Liable for Child's Lead Poisoning from Paint Chips

Tenant, the mother of a young child, sued landlord, claiming landlord was responsible for injuries to the child from exposure to lead paint in tenant's apartment. Tenant asked the court to find landlord responsible without trial. 

The court noted that Local Law 1 requires that the owner of a multiple dwelling remove or cover paint containing specified hazardous levels of lead in any apartment in which a child 6 years of age or younger resides. But liability is not absolute. Tenant must show that landlord had actual or constructive notice of the condition for a period of time such that, in the exercise of reasonable care, the condition should have been remedied.

Here, the court ruled for tenant, who produced evidence that the apartment contained hazardous levels of lead-based paint, that the child was observed ingesting paint chips, that the child had elevated blood levels of lead, and that he had lived in the apartment since birth. Tenant's expert, a doctor, testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that had the child not been lead-poisoned, his overall level of intellectual and future academifc functioning would have been higher, that his exposure to lead paint in the apartment was the substantive cause of his cognitive and intellectual deficits, and that lead poisoning will negatively affect the therapies he would require to make developmental progress. Landlord, in turn, presented no proof that the child's lead poisoning was related to any factors other than his exposure to lead in the apartment. A trial was needed to assess damages.

D.V. v. 997 Hart Street, LLC: Index No 526413/2019, 2024 NY Slip Op 33166(U)(Sup. Ct. NY; 9/10/24; Ward, J)