The facts the court described

Munoz v. Puretz, 301 A.D.2d 382, 753 N.Y.S.2d 463, was decided on January 9, 2003, by a unanimous First Department panel (Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, and Marlow, JJ.), on appeal from Supreme Court, Bronx County. Some online databases list it as Munoz v. E.J. Steinfeld.

The case involved two children, Anna and Amorie, and an apartment at 504 West 159th Street in Manhattan. The defendants on appeal, called the Steinfeld defendants in the decision, were the building’s former owners. They transferred ownership “on or about October 1, 1986.” As the court put it, Anna “was born before defendants sold the premises,” and Amorie “was born afterward.”

The motion court “dismissed the complaint as to Amorie, but sustained Anna’s claim.” So the central question on appeal was whether the younger child, born after the sale, could still pursue a claim against the former owners.

What the appeals court held

The First Department modified the order and reinstated Amorie’s claim against the former owners. The court held that the plaintiffs “raised triable issues of fact that Amorie was exposed to lead in utero while the Steinfeld defendants still owned the premises.”

A triable issue of fact means the question goes to a jury instead of being decided on motion papers. It is not a finding that the former owners were responsible.

The two sides offered competing experts. The court said the defense expert’s opinion “merely raises an issue of fact for the jury to resolve.”

The court also said the claim did not depend on a new legal theory. It wrote that “neither the fact of injury from exposure to lead-based paint or in utero transmission implicates novel theories of liability.” For that point it cited Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd. and an earlier decision describing lead’s harm “especially with regard to children and developing fetuses.”

Finally, the court explained why an earlier case, Bittrolff v. Ho’s Development Corp., did not apply. In Bittrolff, the prior owner was “not held responsible for injuries first sustained after transfer.” In Munoz, the court wrote, “the pregnant mother was exposed to the hazard for eight months before defendants transferred ownership.”

What the court left for a jury

The decision did not find the former owners liable. The court agreed that the plaintiffs “were not entitled to partial summary judgment as to liability,” and it left three questions open:

• Notice. Whether the former owners had “actual or constructive notice that a child six years of age or under was living in one of its residential units” was “a question of fact for the jury.”
• Abatement. Partial summary judgment “requires proof that there were no reasonable abatement efforts,” and the court found a factual issue there as well.
• Causation. The court said “plaintiffs must directly link the children’s condition to lead in the apartment.” It added: “The gap between the alleged exposure and the identifying of lead poisoning in the children raises a question of fact.”

The court also granted the former owners’ motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages. It said punitive damages are “not available for ordinary negligence” and require “clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence” of “egregious and willful conduct.” In terms of moral culpability, the court found the case was not “singularly rare.”

The reported decision does not say how the case finally ended.

How this fits New York landlord rules

On notice, Munoz relied on Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 628 (1996). Under Juarez, a landlord must have had actual or constructive notice that a child six years of age or under lived in the unit. Whether a landlord met its duty to fix a hazardous lead condition is judged by a standard of reasonableness. In Munoz, whether there were reasonable abatement efforts was also left for a jury. This firm was counsel for the plaintiffs in Juarez. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

For how notice and negligence work in a claim against a private landlord, see landlord liability. For the Juarez rules in plain language, see Juarez v. Wavecrest: notice rules for parents. Juarez applied New York City’s Local Law 1 of 1982. For the city’s current lead paint law, see Local Law 1 of 2004.

Courts still cite Munoz. The 2024 Bronx Supreme Court decision in J.A. v. Mandy Associates is one example. Munoz also appears alongside other major New York lead decisions in the firm’s landmark cases summary.

What to keep

In a case like Munoz, dates matter: when you moved in, when you were pregnant, when the building changed hands, and when a lead test came back. Keep lab results, your lease, photos of peeling paint, and copies of anything you sent the landlord in writing. For a fuller list for expecting parents, see lead exposure while pregnant. Deadlines can apply, and some are short; see time limits.

Frequently asked questions

Talk with the firm

If you were pregnant in an older apartment and your child later had a high lead test, we are here to listen. Call The Frankel Law Firm at (212) 888-5100. There is no fee to speak with us or for us to evaluate your potential case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Lead poisoning lawyer.

Sources

• Munoz v. Puretz, 301 A.D.2d 382, 753 N.Y.S.2d 463 (1st Dep’t 2003), pp. 382–385: Official Reports bound volume (301 AD2d)
• Munoz v. Puretz (text through p. 384): vLex
• Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 628 (1996): Court of Appeals opinion

This is a summary of a published court decision, not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Related pages

• Lead exposure while pregnant
• Landlord liability
• Local Law 1 guide
• Landmark cases
• Time limits
• Lead poisoning lawyer

The short answer: “know” and “should have known” are two different tests

The federal lease form asks what your landlord knows. New York injury law asks what your landlord knew or should have known. They are different tests, and checking “no knowledge” on the federal form does not answer the New York question either way.

What the landlord had to hand you before you signed (federal rule)

For the full list of what a landlord must disclose, see lead disclosure rights for renters.

Pre-1978 apartments and the papers

For housing built before 1978, before you are obligated under the lease, the landlord must:

• Give you the EPA pamphlet Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home.
• Disclose any known lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards.
• Give you any lead records or reports available to the landlord, including on common areas.
• Include a Lead Warning Statement in or attached to the lease.
• Have you sign an acknowledgment that you received the information and pamphlet.

The Lead Warning Statement tells you that before renting pre-1978 housing, “lessors must disclose the presence of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the dwelling.” The landlord must keep the signed disclosure for at least three years from the start of the lease.

What “no knowledge” on the form means

A “no knowledge” check on the federal form is a statement about what the landlord knows. It is not a test result, and it does not mean the apartment is lead-free.

The federal rule does not require a lead inspection. The regulation says nothing in it “implies a positive obligation on the seller or lessor to conduct any evaluation or reduction activities.” You can ask the landlord to get an inspection by a certified inspector before you sign, but EPA says landlords “are not required to do so by this Disclosure Rule.”

A landlord who knowingly violates the rule can face civil penalties and liability to the tenant for three times the damages, plus court costs and attorney and expert fees. Exact penalty amounts change. A missing form does not, by itself, prove an injury case.

When the federal rule doesn’t apply

• Housing a certified inspector found free of lead-based paint.
• Leases of 100 days or less that cannot be renewed or extended.
• Renewals with no new information after full disclosure.
• Housing for the elderly or people with disabilities, and 0-bedroom units like studios, unless a child under six lives or is expected to live there.

Renting month to month or without a written lease? See what the landlord had to tell you.

The New York City papers that come with your lease

The child-under-six lease notice and the City pamphlet

When you sign a lease in an older NYC building, the owner must give you the Lease/Commencement of Occupancy Notice. This lead paint lease rider asks whether a child under six will live there or regularly spend 10 or more hours a week there. It comes with the City pamphlet Lead Paint Hazards in the Home, and it is required at signing and at renewal.

The owner’s turnover certification

For a new tenancy, not a renewal, the owner certifies on the notice that required turnover work was done before you moved in. You may ask the owner for the documentation.

The January annual notice

Each year, owners of covered buildings deliver an annual notice asking about a child under six between January 1 and January 16. Return it by February 15. With no answer and no other knowledge, the owner must try to inspect.

Where “should have known” comes from in New York

Notice in a lead case: Juarez (1996)

In Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 628 (1996), the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff must show the owner had actual or constructive notice that a child six or under lived in the unit. A landlord with that notice is chargeable with notice of any hazardous lead condition in the unit. It is not absolute liability: whether the landlord met its duty to fix the hazard “is governed by a standard of reasonableness.” Juarez applied the earlier Local Law 1, not Local Law 1 of 2004.

How courts weigh constructive notice: Chapman (2001)

In Chapman v. Silber, 97 N.Y.2d 9 (2001), the Court of Appeals said that, absent controlling legislation, a triable issue of fact is raised when a plaintiff shows the landlord:

1. kept a right to enter and assumed a duty to repair;
2. knew the building predated the lead paint ban;
3. knew paint was peeling;
4. knew lead paint harms young children; and
5. knew a young child lived there.

Those factors can let a case go to a jury; they are not a finding of responsibility. In New York City, the City lead law drives the analysis, and Chapman shows how New York courts talk about “should have known.”

NYC’s own words: Local Law 1

In a multiple dwelling built before January 1, 1960, paint in an apartment where a child under six resides, and in common areas, is presumed to be lead-based unless certified testing shows otherwise. The owner must investigate at least once a year, and more often when, “in the exercise of reasonable care, an owner knows or should have known of a condition that is reasonably foreseeable to cause a lead-based paint hazard,” or when a tenant complains or the City issues a violation. That is a City duty to investigate, not a liability ruling. See our guide to Local Law 1.

Your answers on the forms matter. If you answered “no child” and a child under six later comes to live there, tell the owner. If the owner is not told and does not otherwise know, the lead-paint presumption does not apply in a personal-injury case.

Whether a particular landlord had notice depends on the facts. For how notice and negligence work, see landlord responsibility.

What families can do at lease signing (practical, not legal advice)

• Ask for the federal disclosure form, the EPA pamphlet, and any lead records before you sign.
• Read the landlord’s statement: does it disclose known lead, or say “no knowledge”?
• Fill in the child-under-six notice truthfully, and keep a copy.
• Tell the landlord in writing if a child under six comes to live there or spends 10 or more hours a week there.
• Return the January annual notice by February 15.
• Report peeling paint to the landlord and to 311, and keep a record.
• Save the lease and every lead paper, including at renewal.

If you did not get these papers, or your child’s lead test result worries you, we are here to help. Call The Frankel Law Firm.

Deadlines

Time limits apply, and some are short; see time limits.

Frequently asked questions

Talk with the firm

Bring your lease and every lead paper to a free consultation. Call The Frankel Law Firm at (212) 888-5100. There is no fee to speak with us or for us to evaluate your potential case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Lead poisoning lawyer.

Sources

• 42 U.S.C. § 4852d (disclosure of lead-based paint hazards): U.S. Code text
• 40 CFR Part 745, Subpart F (EPA disclosure rule): eCFR
• 24 CFR Part 35, Subpart A (HUD disclosure rule): eCFR
• EPA — Real Estate Disclosures about Potential Lead Hazards: EPA disclosure page
• EPA — Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (2026 revision): EPA pamphlet page
• Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 628 (1996): Court of Appeals opinion
• Chapman v. Silber, 97 N.Y.2d 9 (2001): Court of Appeals opinion
• NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4 (owner notice and investigation): NYC Administrative Code
• NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.5 (presumption): NYC Administrative Code
• HPD — Lead-Based Paint: HPD lead page
• HPD — Annual Notice and Investigations: HPD annual notice page
• HPD — Lease/Commencement of Occupancy Notice (English): HPD notice PDF
• HPD — Lead-based paint correction when a child under 6 lives in the unit (turnover): HPD turnover page
• NYC Health Department — Lead Paint Hazards in the Home: City pamphlet PDF

Related pages

• Lead disclosure rights
• Landlord liability
• Time limits
• Lead poisoning lawyer

Caption

Perez v. New York City Housing Authority, 304 A.D.2d 736, 757 N.Y.S.2d 799 (2d Dep’t 2003) — Second Department decision on Department of Health lead-paint findings in later NYCHA litigation, and on summary judgment where causation and injury remained disputed.

This firm litigated Perez for the plaintiffs. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

What the Second Department held

NYCHA’s motion for summary judgment was denied. The plaintiffs’ cross-motion on liability was also denied. Questions of fact on causation and injury remained for trial. The decision did not resolve liability for either side.

The Second Department also agreed with the trial court 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 presented — NYCHA had failed to properly contest that determination under the Department’s rules.

Whether any one child’s claim succeeds still depends on the facts of that case. Reported decisions such as Perez address how Department of Health lead findings can affect later litigation; they do not decide the next family’s outcome.

What belongs on the NYCHA page vs this note

Practical guidance for NYCHA families — what to photograph, how to report, Self-Service Portal and Customer Contact Center steps, and where Notice of Claim timing questions fit — stays on the firm’s NYCHA public housing page.

This note covers only what Perez held and what one appellate decision can and cannot tell a family about its own case.

More on collateral estoppel

The firm’s longer article explains the doctrine and the Department of Health’s Order to Abate, including the limited time a landlord has to contest it, and uses Perez as a case study. For that fuller treatment, see collateral estoppel and its application in housing and health law.

What this means for parents

Keep Health Department papers, inspection and abatement records, and any NYCHA correspondence about lead or repairs. For what to photograph, report, and keep in NYCHA housing, see the firm’s NYCHA public housing page. Deadlines can turn on who owns or runs the building — for City, NYCHA, and school notice rules, see time limits. Some of those deadlines are short.

For the firm’s summary of major New York lead decisions, including Perez and other appellate rulings, see landmark cases. J.A. v. Mandy Associates, a 2025 First Department decision, focuses on the kind of question Perez left for trial: whether lead exposure caused a child’s claimed injuries. For how notice and negligence work against a private landlord, see landlord liability.

Talk with the firm

Call The Frankel Law Firm at (212) 888-5100. There is no fee to speak with us or for us to evaluate your potential case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Lead poisoning lawyer.

Related pages

• NYCHA public housing
• Landmark cases
• Time limits
• Lead poisoning lawyer
• Landlord liability
• J.A. v. Mandy Associates

What parents see on dust-wipe reports

A dust wipe collects dust from a measured surface area. The lab reports lead loading in µg/ft². Reports usually break out floors, window sills, and window wells — EPA materials often call that last surface a window trough; it is the same category parents see on clearance and assessment paperwork.

How an inspector takes a wipe, how XRF testing differs, and what to expect during testing are covered on testing paint and dust for lead.

Current New York City dust-lead levels

Since June 1, 2021, the City Health Code has set these dust-lead levels, following Local Law 66 of 2019:

• Floors — 5 µg/ft²
• Window sills — 40 µg/ft²
• Window wells — 100 µg/ft²

These are the levels that apply to City clearance dust wipes and to Health Department risk assessments. How clearance testing fits into Local Law 1 is covered in the Local Law 1 guide.

The City’s Board of Health has moved to lower all three levels. Until a new standard takes effect, 5, 40, and 100 remain the City’s levels. A change would apply only from the effective date the City sets, so check the sample date on your report and ask which standard the inspector used.

EPA residential dust-lead levels

EPA’s final rule under TSCA sections 402 and 403, announced in October 2024, renamed its two dust-lead standards and lowered both:

• Dust-lead reportable levels (formerly called dust-lead hazard standards) — for floors and window sills, any reportable level measured by a laboratory recognized under EPA’s National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program.
• Dust-lead action levels (post-abatement; formerly clearance levels) — floors 5, window sills 40, window troughs 100 µg/ft².

EPA’s news release states that the updated post-abatement action levels (5 / 40 / 100) reflect standards New York City implemented in 2021. Numerically, EPA’s action levels match the City’s current 5/40/100 clearance figures. EPA’s reportable (hazard-identification) bar is stricter in concept — any laboratory-reportable amount on floors or sills.

The rule took effect January 13, 2025. In lead-based paint programs EPA runs directly, which include New York’s, compliance with the new levels began January 12, 2026. EPA says the change is not retroactive: work that passed clearance under the old levels does not have to be retested.

Reference and compliance — not a lawsuit trigger

The CDC blood lead reference value is 3.5 µg/dL. That figure identifies children with higher blood-lead levels than most U.S. children. It is not a health-based “safe” cutoff and not a lawsuit trigger.

The same is true of City and EPA dust numbers. They are benchmarks for clearance and hazard assessments. A result above or below the floor, sill, or well level does not, by itself, prove that a landlord is legally responsible or guarantee a recovery. A failed wipe is one piece of evidence, not automatic liability.

What this means for parents and tenants

Keep the full lab report, including the surface label for each sample (floor, sill, and well or trough) and the date it was taken, along with any letters from HPD or the Health Department. Ask which standard the inspector compared the results against. If the numbers are high, or the landlord says the work is finished but has not shared clearance results, ask for the paperwork in writing and keep a copy of your request.

Next steps after a child’s blood-lead result or an apartment inspection are covered in what to do now. Legal deadlines depend on the facts, including who owns the building, and some are short; time limits explains how they work.

Need a New York lead poisoning lawyer? Call The Frankel Law Firm about dust-wipe results, clearance paperwork, or a child’s blood-lead result.

There is no fee to speak to us or for us to evaluate your potential case. Learn what a lead poisoning lawyer can do for your family.

Primary sources

• DOHMH — New Lead in Dust Standards for New York City (effective June 1, 2021): lead-in-dust PDF
• HPD — Catching Up with HPD: April 2021 (clearance 5 / 40 / 100 on/after June 1, 2021): HPD April 2021
• EPA — Hazard Standards and Clearance Levels (TSCA 402/403; Oct 2024 final rule): EPA hazard standards page
• EPA news release — EPA Strengthens Standards… (Oct 24, 2024): EPA news release
• EPA — FAQ on the November 12, 2024 final rule (compliance January 12, 2026 in EPA-run programs, including New York; not retroactive): EPA FAQ
• NYC Health Code Article 173 (§ 173.14 dust-lead levels): Health Code Article 173
• NYC Rules — Amendment of Rules Relating to Lead Dust (current status): NYC Rules status page
• CDC — blood lead reference value (3.5 µg/dL): CDC BLRV page

Related pages

• Testing and XRF
• Local Law 1 guide
• What to do now
• Lead poisoning lawyer
• Time limits

Caption

Juarez v. Wavecrest Management Team Ltd., 88 N.Y.2d 628, 672 N.E.2d 135, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115 (1996) — Court of Appeals decision on landlord liability for lead-based paint in New York City.

This firm was counsel for the plaintiffs in Juarez. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Child-in-unit notice

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.

That notice frame is the starting point for many New York City lead claims against private landlords. It is not a finding about any particular building, and it is not a promise about another family’s case.

Not absolute liability — reasonableness

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.

In plain terms for parents: proving a Local Law 1 violation is not the same as an automatic win. Notice, the landlord’s response, and the rest of the negligence case still matter. For how notice and negligence work in a lead claim against a landlord, see the firm’s page on landlord liability.

Juarez-era Local Law 1 vs today

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 the firm’s Local Law 1 guide for the current rules.

What this means for parents

Keep records of who lived in the unit and when a young child was there; photos of peeling paint and dust; Health Department papers; and any word from the landlord about lead or repairs. Deadlines can turn on who owned or ran the building — for City, NYCHA, and school notice rules, see time limits. Some of those deadlines are short.

For the firm’s summary of major New York lead decisions, including Juarez and later appellate rulings, see landmark cases. J.A. v. Mandy Associates, a 2025 First Department decision, addresses a different question: whether lead exposure caused the child’s claimed injuries.

Talk with the firm

Call The Frankel Law Firm at (212) 888-5100. There is no fee to speak with us or for us to evaluate your potential case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Lead poisoning lawyer.

Related pages

• Landmark cases
• Landlord liability
• Lead poisoning lawyer
• Local Law 1 guide
• Time limits
• J.A. v. Mandy Associates