Landlord Must Pay Damages for Lead Poisoning

May 31, 2004

LVT Number: 17346

Tenant sued landlord for damages under Local Law 1 because of her child's injuries from lead poisoning. The court ruled for tenant, and landlord appealed. Landlord claimed that tenant didn't prove there was a dangerous level of lead in the paint in the apartment. The appeals court ruled against landlord. Under Local Law 1, there is a presumption that in a building built before 1960, peeling paint in an apartment occupied by a child age 6 or under is a hazardous condition. It wasn't tenant's burden at trial to show there was a lead paint hazard.

Tenant sued landlord for damages under Local Law 1 because of her child's injuries from lead poisoning. The court ruled for tenant, and landlord appealed. Landlord claimed that tenant didn't prove there was a dangerous level of lead in the paint in the apartment. The appeals court ruled against landlord. Under Local Law 1, there is a presumption that in a building built before 1960, peeling paint in an apartment occupied by a child age 6 or under is a hazardous condition. It wasn't tenant's burden at trial to show there was a lead paint hazard. It was landlord's burden to show there was no hazard. Medical proof showed that the child suffered from lead poisoning. The court upheld a total award of $800,000 for pain and suffering, speech therapy, tutoring, psychotherapy, and loss of earning potential.

Jiminez v. City of New York: NYLJ, 5/6/04, p. 29, col. 5 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Nardelli, JP, Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin, JJ)

Topics

More like this