Skip to main content

Recent Developments: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court on Lead-Based Paint Lawsuit

In an April 1, 2015 decision, the appeals court for Long Island and parts of New York City reversed a lower court decision that had thrown out "common law" negligence claims against a landlord involving lead-based paint. A "common law" claim means the claim comes from judge-made law, not a statute.

The plaintiff was renting an apartment in a Brooklyn brownstone in the early 2000's and lived there with her two small children. In 2005, blood tests showed that the two children had elevated levels of lead in their blood. The NYC Department of Health was called in and found lead-based paint on the walls.

On behalf of her two children, the mother sued the brownstone owner, alleging statutory claims and common law claims of negligence for the injuries from the lead-based paint. Ultimately, the defendants made a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the common law claims, arguing they did not know about, and had no reason to know about, the lead-based paint until the Dept. of Health did their inspection. The lower court agreed.

The appeals court reversed the lower court, saying, first of all, a landowner "has a duty to maintain his or her premises in a reasonably safe condition." Second, a landlord should have discovered and removed lead-based paint on walls where
the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned, (3) was aware that paint was peeling on the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children, and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment.
The court held that the defendants had not established on their motion that they did not have such "constructive notice" of lead-based paint on the walls.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Germanwings Tragedy and Claims for Negligent Retention

There has been a lot of news about the terrible crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, which resulted in the death of 150 people when the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, (apparently) intentionally crashed the plane into the French Alps. Reports are that Lubitz had suicidal tendencies and had been declared medically unfit to fly . What may soon follow are lawsuits against Germanwings and Lufthansa (which owns Germanwings) for claims similar to what New York calls "negligent retention": A claim for negligent supervision or retention arises when an employer places an employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which the injured party most probably would have been spared had the employer taken reasonable care in supervising or retaining the employee. Vione v. Tewell,  12 Mic.3d 973, 979, 820 N.Y.S.2d 682 (Sup.Ct., New York County, 2006). Under New York law, a claim for negligent hiring, supervision or retention, "in addition to the standard elements of negligence,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Know Your Rights: New York's Consumer Protection Statute

Under New York law, there are several ways that consumers can recover damages (money) or other relief against businesses that ripped them off, deceived them, or otherwise treated them improperly. One of these ways is New York's Consumer Protection Statute (General Business Law § 349). Under GBL §349, a consumer can sue a business if he or she can show that the subject act or practice (1) was consumer-oriented; (2) was misleading in a material way; and (3) the consumer suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act. If successful, a consumer can recover their actual damages (money they lost), their reasonable attorney fees, and "treble" (triple) damages up to $1,000 (if the business acted willfully and knowingly in deceiving the consumer). The $1,000 cap on treble damages needs to be eliminated. It is no deterrent to businesses behaving badly. 
Post a Comment
Read more