Was Former Tenant's Son Injured by Lead Paint?

Plaintiff, the son of a former tenant, sued landlord for damages arising from his exposure to lead paint as a child. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled for landlord. The child appealed and won, in part. The case was reopened. There were questions of fact as to whether landlord had constructive notice of the lead paint hazard in the apartment, requiring a trial.  ThereStill, the appeals court held that the statutory warranty of habitability didn't create a presumption that landlord had notice of the claimed dangerous condition. And plaintiff wasn't entitled to reopen the judgment in landlord's favor based on newly discovered documents in which landlord acknowledged at the time it purchased the building that it was aware that the building contained or may contain lead-based paint, since the document didn't state that landlord knew that there was peeling or chipping paint in tenant's apartment where child lived.

Watson v. Priore: 104 A.D.3d 1304, 2013 NY Slip Op 01961 (App. Div. 4 Dept.; 3/22/13; Scudder, PJ, Peradotto, Carni, Lindley, Whalen, JJ)