You are here: / Toxic Torts
,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this lead paint poisoning case should not have been granted:

“In order [t]o establish that a landlord is liable for a lead-paint condition, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of, and a reasonable opportunity to remedy, the hazardous condition’ ” … . Where, as here, there is no evidence that the landlord had actual notice, plaintiffs may establish that the landlord had constructive notice of such condition by demonstrating that 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” … .  Here, it is undisputed that decedent retained a right of entry and assumed a duty to make repairs, but the remaining … factors are in dispute.

By submitting the deposition testimony of plaintiffs’ mother, wherein she testified that she told [defendant] that she would be living at the residence with her young children, [defendants] raised a triable issue of fact on the fifth … factor. Similarly, [defendant’s] own deposition testimony raised a triable issue of fact on the second … factor inasmuch as he testified that the subject residence was old, that lead was taken out of gasoline in 1970, and he “must have known” that laws regarding lead started to come out in the 1970s ,,, . Even assuming, arguendo, that [defendants] met their initial burden on the third and fourth … factors, we conclude that plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact by submitting ” evidence from which it may be inferred that [defendant] knew that paint was peeling on the premises’ . . . , and evidence from which a jury could infer that [defendant] knew or should have known of the dangers of lead paint to children’ ” … . Rodrigues v Lesser, 2017 NY Slip Op 03669, 4th Dept 5-5-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD PAINT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/LEAD PAINT (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LEAD-PAINT CONDITION, DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO TEST FOR LEAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Fourth Department determined the lead paint poisoning complaint should have been dismissed because plaintiff was unable to show defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition and defendants were not under a duty to test for lead:

Defendants submitted affidavits and deposition testimony establishing that they were not aware of any peeling or chipping paint on the premises prior to the inspection conducted by the [Monroe County Department of Health]. Defendants also established that neither plaintiff nor the relatives with whom plaintiff resided at the premises ever complained to either defendant of any peeling or chipping paint on the premises. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, he failed to raise an issue of fact whether defendants were aware of chipping and peeling paint on the premises … , or whether defendants retained the requisite right of entry to the apartment to sustain a claim for constructive notice … . Furthermore, “[w]ithout evidence legally sufficient to permit a jury to rationally infer that the defendant had constructive notice of a dangerous condition, the defendant cannot be held liable for failure to warn or to remedy the defect” … . Consequently, absent evidence raising a triable issue of fact whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the premises, the court erred in denying that part of the motion seeking dismissal of the failure to warn claim. …

“The Court of Appeals in Chapman (97 NY2d at 21) expressly decline[d] to impose a new duty on landlords to test for the existence of lead in leased properties based solely upon the general knowledge of the dangers of lead-based paints in older homes” … . Taggart v Fandel, 2017 NY Slip Op 02177, 4th Dept 3-24-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD PAINT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LEAD-PAINT CONDITION, DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO TEST FOR LEAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/LEAD PAINT (DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LEAD-PAINT CONDITION, DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO TEST FOR LEAD, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

, ,

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)

,

LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED.

The Third Department determined an action by a 28-year-old woman alleging lead paint poisoning was time-barred. Plaintiff was first diagnosed with high levels of lead in 1990. The statute of limitations runs from when the symptoms are first discovered, not when the cause of the symptoms is learned:

… [D]efendants’ submissions were sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff was cognizant of her claimed injuries, or, at a minimum, reasonably should have been, such that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Although CPLR 214-c (2) permits an action to proceed within three years from the “discovery of the injury,” this means the “discover[y of] the primary condition on which the claim is based” … , or, put differently, “the discovery of the manifestations or symptoms of the latent disease that the harmful substance produced” … . Here, accepting that lead was the causative harmful substance, plaintiff was aware of her injuries, which first manifested when she started public education in 1990 and, according to plaintiff, continued throughout her school years. Although plaintiff argues that her action is timely because she first discovered that she suffered lead poisoning when her attorney sent a solicitation letter to her mother in 2012, we disagree. Where, as here, a plaintiff is seeking the benefit of the discovery rule applicable to toxic torts, the statute runs from the date the condition or symptom is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, not the discovery of the specific cause of the condition or symptom … . Vasilatos v Dzamba, 2017 NY Slip Op 01615, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED)/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD POISONING, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED/LEAD POISONING (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM WHEN THE SYMPTOMS ARE FIRST DISCOVERED, NOT WHEN THE CAUSE OF THE SYMPTOMS IS LEARNED)

,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS EMANATING FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS.

 

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the plaintiff’s verdict in this asbestos/mesothelioma case was properly set aside by the trial court. The First Department held the plaintiff’s experts did not present sufficient proof plaintiff’s decedent was exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos emanating from defendant’s products while working as an auto mechanic:

… [T]he fact that asbestos, or chrysotile, has been linked to mesothelioma, is not enough for a determination of liability against a particular defendant; a causation expert must still establish that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin from the defendant’s products to have caused his disease … . Even if it is not possible to quantify a plaintiff’s exposure, causation from exposure to toxins in a defendant’s product must be established through some scientific method, such as mathematical modeling based on a plaintiff’s work history, or comparing the plaintiff’s exposure with that of subjects of reported studies … .

The evidence presented by plaintiff here was insufficient because it failed to establish that the decedent’s mesothelioma was a result of his exposure to a sufficient quantity of asbestos in friction products sold or distributed by defendant Ford Motor Company. Plaintiff’s experts effectively testified only in terms of an increased risk and association between asbestos and mesothelioma … , but failed to either quantify the decedent’s exposure levels or otherwise provide any scientific expression of his exposure level with respect to Ford’s products … . Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 01523, 1st Dept 2-28-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)/TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)/ASBESTOS (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)/EXPERT OPINION (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)

, ,

ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT.

The Fourth Department determined only the failure to warn causes of action in this lawsuit against a pesticide manufacturer were preempted by federal law. Supreme Court should not have dismissed the negligence, defective design/manufacture and breach of warranty causes of action. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted only those causes of action that could result in state labelling requirements:

The preemption provision of FIFRA provides that, “[i]n general[,] . . . a State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter” (7 USC § 136v [a]). On the other hand, FIFRA provides that, in the interest of “[u]niformity[,] . . . [s]uch State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in dismissing the third, fifth, and sixth causes of action of plaintiff’s amended complaint, as well as those parts of the fourth cause of action that do not allege a failure to warn. Plaintiff’s causes of action and claims alleging defendant’s breach of warranty, ordinary negligence, and defective design and manufacture of its product, i.e., theories unrelated to labeling or packaging, are not preempted by FIFRA … . Esposito v Contec, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00842, 4th Dept 2-3-17

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/NEGLIGENCE (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/PREEMPTION (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/PESTICIDES (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)/TOXIC TORTS (ONLY FAILURE TO WARN CAUSES OF ACTION PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THIS PESTICIDE-INJURY LAWSUIT)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT.

The First Department, in a case reversed and remitted by the Court of Appeals, determined there was a question of fact whether contractual subrogation provisions applied to certain policies covering injury by lead paint (remitting the case to Supreme Court). The Court of Appeals had held the antisubrogation rule did not apply to preclude recovery:

Given the ambiguities in the relevant agreements, we cannot find as a matter of law that the insurers are entitled to contractually subrogate to ANP’s indemnification rights. On remand, the motion court is to consider the intent of these provisions in light of the extrinsic evidence. Millennium Holdings LLC v Glidden Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 00258, 1st Dept 1-17-17

INSURANCE LAW (LEAD PAINT, SUBROGATION, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT)/SUBROGATION (INSURANCE LAW, LEAD PAINT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT)/LEAD PAINT (INSURANCE LAW, LEAD PAINT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTRACTUAL SUBROGATION PROVISIONS APPLIED TO CERTAIN POLICIES COVERING INJURY BY LEAD PAINT)

, ,

DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's toxic tort action on statute of limitations grounds. Plaintiff alleged injury caused by mold in a building owned by defendant:

… [D]efendant was required to show, at a minimum, that plaintiff's alleged exposure to a toxic substance did not occur within three years of the commencement of the action … . If defendant exposed or continued to expose plaintiff to a toxic substance within three years of the commencement of the action, plaintiff could not have discovered any resulting injuries from such exposure at a time that would be barred by CPLR 214-c (2). Given that a plaintiff cannot discover the injurious effects of exposure to a toxic substance prior to that exposure occurring, and considering defendant's concession that plaintiff continued to be exposed to the mold at a time less than three years prior to the commencement of the action, defendant is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on statute of limitations grounds.

Turning to the allegedly injurious exposure taking place more than three years prior to the commencement of the action, we find that defendant did not prove as a matter of law that plaintiff should have discovered his allergy and asthma conditions at a time that is barred by CPLR 214-c (2). Although plaintiff exhibited some symptoms, including skin and eye irritation and tightness in the throat, in the spring and summer of 2002, plaintiff also explained that such symptoms ceased when he would leave the building at the end of his shifts. Further, plaintiff averred that he did not seek medical treatment for these symptoms, miss work as a result of the symptoms or file a workers' compensation claim until late October 2002. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the symptoms that plaintiff exhibited more than three years prior to the commencement of the action were too intermittent and inconsequential to trigger the running of the statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 214-c (2) … . Malone v Court W. Developers, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03571, 3rd Dept 5-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/TOXIC TORTS (DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/MOLD (TOXIC TORTS, DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (TOXIC TORTS DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (TOXIC TORTS DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS)

,

ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, reversing the Appellate Division, re: claims stemming from lead paint exposure, determined the antisubrogation rule did not apply to a party, ANP, which was not covered by the relevant policy:

… [T]he antisubrogation rule is an exception to the right of subrogation … . Under that rule, “an 'insurer has no right of subrogation against its own insured for a claim arising from the very risk for which the insured was covered . . . even where the insured has expressly agreed to indemnify the party from whom the insurer's rights are derived'” … . In effect, “an insurer may not step into the shoes of its insured to sue a third-party tortfeasor . . . for damages arising from the same risk covered by the policy” … , even where there is an express subrogation agreement … . The two primary purposes of the antisubrogation rule are to avoid “a conflict of interest that would undercut the insurer's incentive to provide an insured with a vigorous defense” and “to prohibit an insurer from passing its loss to its own insured” … .  * * *

The antisubrogation rule … requires a showing that the party the insurer is seeking to enforce its right of subrogation against is its insured, an additional insured, or a party who is intended to be covered by the insurance policy in some other way … . Here, as recognized by the courts below, ANP and its predecessor were not insured under the relevant insurance policies. … Thus, the principal element for application of the antisubrogation rule — that the insurer seeks to enforce its right of subrogation against its own insured, additional insured, or a party intended to be covered by the insurance policy — is absent. Millennium Holdings LLC v Glidden Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 03543, CtApp 5-5-16

INSURANCE LAW (INSURANCE LAW, ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY)/SUBROGATION (INSURANCE LAW, ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY)/ANITSUBROGATION RULE  (INSURANCE LAW,  ANTISUBROGATION RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO A PARTY NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT POLICY)

, , ,

LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Fahey, determined a New York City Local Law, which imposed a duty on the landlord to abate lead paint in an apartment where a child under the age of six “resides,” did not apply to an apartment where a child was cared for 50 hours per week. Plaintiff’s child was cared for during the day by grandmother in grandmother’s apartment. The child developed an elevated lead level. In order to sue the landlord, the landlord must have owed a statutory duty to the child to abate the lead in grandmother’s apartment. The majority held that the term “reside” in the Local Law did not encompass the child’s presence in the apartment 50 hours a week. Therefore the landlord owed no duty to the child:

Dictionaries from the relevant time period define “reside” as “to dwell permanently or continuously: occupy a place as one’s legal domicile” (Merriam Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1003 [9th ed 1986]) and “to have a settled abode for a time; have one’s residence or domicile” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1931 [1981]). According to Webster’s Third, “reside” is the “preferred term for expressing the idea that a person keeps or returns to a particular dwelling place as his fixed, settled, or legal abode” … . Black’s Law Dictionary notes that “residence” “is made up of fact and intention, the fact of abode and the intention of remaining, and is a combination of acts and intention. Residence implies something more than mere physical presence and something less than domicile” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1176 [5th ed 1979]). * * *

Nothing in the legislative history of Local Law 1 suggests that the City Council meant anything other than this understanding of the term “reside.” We presume the City was familiar with the common meaning and usage of the words it used as well as existing decisional law …, which, in this case, understood residence as something more than physical presence but something less than domicile — living in a particular place with the intent to retain it as a residence … . Had the City intended to expand the meaning of the word “reside” to include children who do not actually live in an apartment but spend significant amounts of time there, it could have used words to that effect … . Yaniveth R. v LTD Realty Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 02550, CtApp 4-5-16

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD PAINT, LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES)/LEAD PAINT (LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES)/LANDLORD-TENANT (LEAD PAINT, LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD SPENT 50 HOURS PER WEEK IN THE CARE OF HER GRANDMOTHER, LAW REQUIRING LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT APPLIES ONLY TO APARTMENTS WHERE A CHILD RESIDES)

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