Tenant Claims Abatement Work Done Improperly

Facts: Tenant sued landlord, the City of New York, and the city's contractor based on her child's lead poisoning. She claimed that the child was exposed to toxic levels of lead in their apartment. DOH inspected the apartment and ordered landlord to abate the lead condition. Landlord didn't do so and DOH hired a contractor to abate the lead condition during January 1983. In February 1983, DOH certified that the lead condition had been abated. But in October 1983, the child still had an elevated blood lead level. And tenant claimed that the contractor did the work improperly. A doctor called by tenant as an expert witness stated that the child was further exposed to lead poisoning during the abatement process. The city and contractor asked the court to dismiss the case against them without a trial, claiming that there was no proof that the lead poisoning resulted from the contractor's work. The court ruled for the city and contractor, and tenant appealed. Court: Tenant wins. A trial was needed to determine the facts. The contractor may have performed its work in a way that created extensive lead dust and debris. Since tenant's expert and the city's expert disagreed on whether the child's exposure to lead during the abatement project contributed to or worsened the lead poisoning, a trial was needed.

Vega v. S.S.A. Properties, Inc.: NYLJ, 12/30/04, p. 27, col. 6 (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Nardelli, JP, Mazzarelli, Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, JJ)