You are here: / / Only Sellers’, Not Buyers’, Agent Can Be Liable for Failure...
, ,

Only Sellers’, Not Buyers’, Agent Can Be Liable for Failure to Disclose Lead Paint Dangers

In dismissing a complaint seeking damages pursuant to the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (RLPHRA) for the failure to make disclosures regarding the dangers of lead paint, the Second Department noted that only seller’s agents, not buyer’s agents, can be held liable under the act:

The statutory language of the RLPHRA “is unambiguous with regard to the liability of real estate agents; only seller’s agents are liable” for the failure to ensure compliance with its provisions… . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, it would be contrary to the unambiguous language of the statute to construe 24 CFR 35.86 so as to impose a duty on an agent or representative of a buyer… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the …defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Felix v Thomas R Stachecki Gen Contr, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 03966, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

You might also like
Attorney for Child Could File Abuse Petition After Abuse Petition Withdrawn by Department of Social Services
Application for “Special Immigrant Juvenile” Status Need Only Assert Reunification with One Parent Is Not Possible
THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED RENDERING THE REPORT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
Bicyclist’s Negligence as a Matter of Law Did Not Warrant Summary Judgment to Defendant (Bus Driver, etc.)/There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause of an Accident
PUNITIVE DAMAGES PROPERLY SENT TO THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANT DOCTOR DESTROYED HAND WRITTEN NOTES MADE WHEN SEEING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A CHILD, WHO DIED BECAUSE OF THE DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE DIABETES (SECOND DEPT).
In the Absence of Allegations in the Pleadings Supporting an “Espinal” Exception to the Rule that Tort Liability to Third Persons Does Not Arise from a Contract, No Question of Fact Was Raised About a Duty Owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff
THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SALARY PROMISED PLAINTIFF AT THE OUTSET WAS A MISTAKE WHICH HAD BEEN CORRECTED, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HER BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS UNDER AN “AT-WILL EMPLOYEE” THEORY WAS NOT APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE; THE INFORMATION MAY BE RELEVANT TO LIFE AND/OR WORK-LIFE EXPECTANCY (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Out-Of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Missing Light in Stairwell Sellers Had No Duty to Disclose Recorded Easement—Caveat Emptor