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

A landlord’s liability for lead paint exposure under New York City’s Local Law 1 requires actual or constructive notice that a child under seven resides in the apartment, and the landlord’s actions are judged by a standard of reasonableness.

Summary

This case addresses a landlord’s liability under New York City’s Local Law 1 for a child’s lead poisoning. The Court of Appeals held that a landlord must have actual or constructive notice that a child under seven resides in the apartment to be liable. However, if the landlord has such notice, they are charged with constructive notice of hazardous lead conditions. The landlord’s actions to abate the hazard are evaluated based on reasonableness. The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment, finding a factual dispute about whether the landlord had notice of the child’s residency before receiving a Department of Health order.

Facts

Mayaghor Realty acquired a building in 1984. Julio Ortiz was the tenant of record for apartment 4C. In 1987, Noemi Juarez and her two daughters sublet part of the apartment from Ortiz without Mayaghor’s knowledge. Juarez paid Ortiz rent. The apartment had peeling paint from the beginning, and Juarez observed her daughters eating paint chips. In 1988, her daughter Peggy was diagnosed with lead poisoning. The Department of Health found lead paint violations in the apartment and issued an abatement order. Despite this order, the lead problem was not corrected, and Peggy’s lead levels remained high.

Procedural History

Juarez sued Mayaghor, Wavecrest, and a successor owner, alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that the landlord had notice of the lead condition and a child living in the apartment. The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment against Mayaghor, holding that Local Law 1 imposes an affirmative duty of inspection. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that liability requires notice of a child under seven residing in the apartment.

Issue(s)

Whether Local Law 1 imposes an affirmative duty on landlords to ascertain if children under six reside in their dwelling units and to inspect for lead hazards, and whether violation of Local Law 1 results in absolute liability.

Holding

No, because Local Law 1 does not impose a continuous affirmative duty to inspect for the residence of children under seven. No, because liability under Local Law 1 requires a showing of negligence, including notice and a reasonable opportunity to repair the condition.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while Local Law 1 imposes a duty to ameliorate hazardous levels of lead-based paint, it does not create absolute liability. A landlord’s actions are judged by a standard of reasonableness. The court noted that Local Law 1 doesn’t explicitly eliminate the common-law notice requirement. “Under Local Law 1, lead-based paint constitutes a hazard when two conditions are present: first, lead in an amount exceeding the stated threshold and second, a child six years of age or under residing in the apartment.” The Court distinguished Local Law 1 from other regulations, like the window guard law, which explicitly requires landlords to inquire about children residing in the apartment. However, if a landlord has notice that a child under seven resides in an apartment, Local Law 1 provides for constructive notice of the hazardous lead condition because the law grants the landlord a right of entry to inspect and repair. Causation was established because the child lived in the apartment with lead paint, was seen eating paint chips, and had elevated lead levels. The defendant’s speculative assertions were insufficient to defeat summary judgment.