New Trial Required on Lead Poisoning Claim

Facts: Tenant's child was found to have high levels of lead in his bloodstream after swallowing paint chips in tenant's apartment. Tenant sued landlord, claiming that landlord hadn't made repairs that would have decreased the lead paint hazard. Landlord claimed that steps had been taken to abate any lead paint conditions in the building and, upon notice, in tenant's apartment. After a trial, the court told the jury that there were two grounds for possible liability. First, landlord was liable for the child's supposed injuries under NYC lead paint hazard abatement law. Second, landlord could be liable for negligence. But the court instructed the jury that because lead paint had been found in tenant's apartment and because tenant's child was under the age of 7, the law was unquestionably violated and the only question was whether landlord was negligent. The court ruled for tenant based on the jury's finding in tenant's favor. Landlord appealed, claiming that the court improperly instructed the jury. Court: Landlord wins. Landlord presented proof of its efforts to renovate the building and to abate the lead hazard in tenant's apartment specifically. The jury wasn't allowed to consider any evidence that landlord had violated the lead paint law because of the court's improper instruction that the only issue was whether landlord was negligent. A new trial was required.

Rivas v. 1340 Hudson Realty Corp.: NYLJ, p. 30, col. 5 (12/19/96) (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Milonas, JP, Kupferman, Nardelli, Mazzarelli, JJ)