Was Landlord Liable for Children's Exposure to Lead Paint?

Former tenant sued landlord for negligence and violation of lead paint laws, based on her children's exposure to lead-based paint in their apartment. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without trial, claiming that it wasn't responsible for any injuries to the children. The court ruled for landlord, in part, dismissing the negligence claim. Tenant appealed and that claim was reinstated. Landlord argued that it had no actual or constructive notice of the presence of lead paint in the apartment until DOH issued an abatement order in September 2005, so it couldn't be liable under a common-law negligence claim. But landlord had a common-law duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. And landlord could have had constructive notice of the condition if landlord: (a) retained a right of entry to the apartment and assumed a duty to make repairs; (b) knew the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based paint was banned; (c) was aware that paint was peeling in the apartment; (d) knew of the hazards of lead paint to young children; and (e) knew that a young child lived in the apartment. A trial was needed to determine the facts.

Greene v. Mullen: 2015 NY Slip Op 02729, 2015 WL 1448040 (App. Div. 2 Dept.; 4/1/15; Skelos, JP, Roman, Hinds-Radix, LaSalle, JJ)