You are here: / / NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED...
, ,

NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined the New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA’s) motion for summary judgment in this lead-paint poisoning case was properly denied. The NYCHA argued that the building was constructed in 1974 and lead paint was banned in 1960:

Although NYCHA relies on its own testing that was negative for lead paint, DOH’s [Department of Health’s] lead testing came back positive. NYCHA’s arguments that these were false positives due to the manner in which, and location from where, the samples were taken is insufficient to disregard them as a matter of law. * * *

Nor did NYCHA prove as a matter of law, that it had no actual or constructive notice of the existence of lead paint in the building. Pursuant to the City’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (Local Law 1 of 2004), lead-based paint is presumed to exist in a multiple dwelling unit if the building was built before 1960. Where, as here, the building is built between 1960 and 1978, the presumption will apply only if the owner knows that there is lead-based paint, and a child under the age of six lives in the apartment. Although in a pre-1960 building, paint is presumed to contain lead, the opposite is not true; there is no presumption that paint in a building constructed after 1960 is not lead-based. Given plaintiff’s claim, that NYCHA maintains the premises and assumed the duty to have the apartments painted, the absence of any evidence concerning the history of painting in the subject apartments is insufficient for the court to rule out, as a matter of law, notice. Dakota Jade T. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 01987, 1st Dept 3-21-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD PAINT, NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (LEAD PAINT, NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)/LEAD PAINT (NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED)

You might also like
WHERE DEFENDANT ASSERTED HIS INNOCENCE AT TRIAL, HAS A PENDING APPEAL AND ASSERTS HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE SORA PROCEEDING, THE SORA COURT SHOULD NOT ASSESS POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 12 FOR FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL IN A POTHOLE IN THE PATH FROM THE BUS TO THE CURB, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Administrative Review of a Rent Overcharge Petition Should Have Been Granted; Allegations of Fraud Overcame Four-Year Statute of Limitations
PROPERTY OWNERS WERE AWARE THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT HAD BEEN HOSED DOWN BY RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES ON A COLD DAY; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICY-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
Exclusion of Defendant’s Brother from the Courtroom Based Upon the Fear of a Testifying Witness Was Proper, Despite Lack of Express Findings by Trial Judge
PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT).
A RETROCESSIONAL INSURER WHICH PAID OUT A SETTLEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE INSURED IN THE UNDERLYING LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE, IS ENTITLED TO BRING A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE LAWYERS FOR THE INSURED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES FROM THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY (FIRST 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

EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, QUESTION OF FACT RAISED WHETHER SNOW... DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE...