Share
In Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., the Court of Appeals of New York addressed New York City Local Law 1 regarding lead-based paint. The court held that while the law requires landlords to abate lead-based paint in apartments in which children six years old or younger reside, there is no statutory duty for the landlords to inspect whether such children live in their apartments.
Ortiz rented an apartment from Mayaghor Realty. The lease prohibited Ortiz from subletting all or any of the unit but, in October 1987, Juarez and her two infant daughters sublet part of the apartment. From the onset, Juarez noticed that peeling paint pervaded the apartment. On several occasions, she saw both daughters with paint dust on their hands and eating paint chips. Although Juarez complained to Ortiz about the problem, she never spoke to anyone connected with the owner. In September 1988, one of the children was diagnosed with lead poisoning. The City Department of Health (DOH) determined the presence of lead-based paint throughout the apartment and ordered the managing agent, Wavecrest, to abate the nuisance. The Order explained that a child with a high blood level of lead resided in unit 4C, which was identified as a nuisance. The DOH found continuing violations through February 1989.
Juarez sued Mayaghor, Wavecrest, and the successor owner, alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Juarez. The appellate division reversed that summary judgment, holding against Wavecrest and the successor owner, but affirmed it as to Mayaghor, who appealed.
The Court noted that Local Law 1 requires owners of multiple dwellings to remove or cover lead-based paint in any unit in which a child or children six years of age and under reside. Subdivision 2 establishes a rebuttable presumption that, in any unit within a multiple dwelling erected prior to 1960 in which such a child resides, "any peeling paint . . . contains more than the specified level of lead." Local Law 1 implicitly grants landlords the right of entry to effectuate such repairs, thus vesting in them sufficient control over leased premises to sustain liability.
The Court rejected plaintiff's contention that Local Law 1 results in absolute liability. The court found that while the law places a duty on landlords to abate the hazard, if a landlord establishes that it exercised due care, it will not be held liable. Thus, to avoid liability, a landlord must prove that, even though it otherwise violated the law, it was acting reasonably under the circumstances. The court held that because defendant took no action after it learned of the presence of lead-based paint, its abatement efforts were not reasonable. However, the court also held that before liability can attach under Local Law 1, a landlord must have actual or constructive notice of both the hazardous lead condition and the residence of a child six years of age or younger. Further, landlords are not required to inspect whether such children live in their buildings.
Based on the above, the Court affirmed the failure to abate issue. It also held that plaintiff's established causation as a matter of law. However, it remanded the notice issue for a determination of whether defendant had notice that the infant resided in the apartment prior to the date of the DOH Order.
Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 628, 672 N.E.2d 135, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115 (1996).
Editor's Note: To see pre-1990 Broker Liability cases organized by jurisdiction, click here.