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

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more