Is Landlord Responsible for Child's Lead Paint Injuries?

Tenant sued former landlord, claiming that her child was seriously injured by lead paint in their apartment. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that it had no knowledge of chipping or peeling paint inside the apartment or in the building lobby, and had sold the building by the time the child was exposed. The court ruled against landlord, finding that a trial was needed to determine the facts.

Landlord appealed and lost. Even if there was no proof that out-of-possession landlord had actual notice of a hazardous lead-paint condition in tenant’s apartment, landlord may be responsible if he had constructive notice, knew that the apartment was built at a time before lead paint was banned, was aware that paint was peeling or chipping, knew of the hazards of lead paint to young children, and knew that a young child lived in the apartment. In this case, landlord didn’t have actual notice of any condition in the apartment. But landlord knew that the building was 50 years old and could have lead paint. Landlord also knew of the hazards of lead paint and that tenant had a young child. Whether landlord knew that paint was chipping and peeling at the time that tenant lived in her apartment was an open question. And there was a question as to whether landlord would have known about any peeling or chipping paint in the building lobby since landlord had the right to enter the building and make repairs. Landlord denied ever seeing peeling paint in the lobby, but tenant claimed she saw paint chips and dust throughout the front hallway and front and rear stairways during the whole time she lived in the building. And landlord owned the building for part of the time that tenant claimed the conditions existed, so landlord could be responsible.

Charette v. Santspree: 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 10013, 2009 WL 5150304 (12/31/09) (App. Div. 3 Dept.; Mercure, JP, Kavanagh, Stein, McCarthy, Garry, JJ)