Landmark lead cases

Juarez v. Wavecrest, 88 N.Y.2d 628 (1996)

This firm was counsel for the plaintiffs in Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 628 (1996) — the Court of Appeals decision that set the rules for landlord liability for lead-based paint in New York City. Juarez applied the earlier Local Law 1, not Local Law 1 of 2004. Housing obligations today are governed principally by Local Law 1 of 2004 — see our Local Law 1 guide.

The Court held that to establish liability plaintiffs must show the building owner had actual or constructive notice that a child six years of age or under was living in one of its residential units. A landlord with such notice is chargeable with notice of any hazardous lead condition in that unit. Violation of Local Law 1 does not result in absolute liability. Whether a landlord satisfied its duty to remedy a hazardous lead condition is governed by a standard of reasonableness.

Michael Stewart Frankel and Reuven S. Frankel welcome your call.

Munoz v. Puretz, 301 A.D.2d 382 (1st Dept 2003)

The Appellate Division found triable issues of fact that an infant was exposed to lead in utero while former owners still held the premises. The court said neither injury from exposure to lead-based paint nor in utero transmission implicates novel theories of liability, citing Juarez. Partial summary judgment on liability was properly denied — notice, abatement, and causation remained questions of fact. Punitive damages were not available for ordinary negligence. Parent explanation: Prenatal exposure.

Zaman v. Patwary, 295 A.D.2d 424 (2d Dept 2002)

The infant plaintiff lived from birth in a multiple dwelling with peeling and chipping paint. The defendant knew of the condition and that the child resided there. After lead poisoning was diagnosed, a Department of Health inspection found illegal lead paint and issued an order to abate. The Appellate Division granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability for personal injuries from ingestion of lead paint. The defendant’s showing that spices from the premises were to be tested was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the source of the lead.

Perez v. New York City Housing Authority, 304 A.D.2d 736 (2d Dept 2003)

NYCHA’s motion for summary judgment was denied, as was the plaintiffs’ cross motion on liability. Questions of fact on causation and injury remained. The court held that the Department of Health’s final determination of 80 lead-paint violations in the subject apartment should be afforded collateral estoppel effect under the circumstances — NYCHA had failed to properly contest that determination under the Department’s rules. Related: NYCHA public housing.

These sentences are not a finding about any current landlord.

There is no fee to speak to us or for us to evaluate your potential case.

Call (212) 888-5100

Lead poisoning information

• Lead poisoning lawyer
• Landlord responsibility
• Local Law 1
• Prenatal exposure