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
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ (ZBA’S) DENIAL OF A LOT-SIZE VARIANCE CONFLICTED WITH A PRIOR RULING BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS; THEREFORE THE ZBA WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR ITS DECISION; THE DECISION, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY COMMUNITY OPPOSITION, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
SECOND DEPT ASKED FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEBT WAS INCURRED DURING MARRIAGE, WIFE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PORTION OF THE DEBT USED SOLELY TO FURTHER HUSBAND’S BUSINESS.
THE ALLEGATION THE LAW ENFORCEMENT DEFENDANTS PRESENTED FALSE TESTIMONY DURING PLANTIFFS’ PROSECUTIONS STATED A VALID FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 (SECOND DEPT).
THE RIGHT TO SEEK REMOVAL OF A CLOUD ON TITLE IS NEVER BARRED BY A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216(A); THEREFORE THE JUDGE COULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE “BORROWER” SIGNED THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT AND THEN CONVEYED A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO TWO “OWNERS” WHO DID NOT SIGN THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT; THE BANK SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING THE ALLEGEDLY ABANDONED PROPERTY UNDER “QUASI CONTRACT” THEORIES; THE QUASI-CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE AGREEMENT WAS DEEMED TO COVER THE “BORROWER” AND THE NONSIGNATORY “OWNERS” (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