Home » News » Finz Firm News »

Landlord Failed to Remove Lead Paint

Jan 7, 2007 | Staff | VerdictSearch New York Reporter

Supreme Court, Eleventh Judicial District, Queens County, New York Raul Aldave, an Infant by His m/n/g, Evelin Rojas and Evelin Rojas Individually v. Diane McClain, 1862 Cornelia Street, LLC. and RAL Properties, LLC.

AWARD:  $760,000 Settlement

ATTORNEYS:
Plaintiff: Stuart L. Finz; Finz & Finz; Todd M. Rubin; Finz & Finz; Jericho, NY (Evelin Rojas, Raul Aldave)

Defendant: John Kieran Daly; Gladstein & Isaac; New York, NY (1862 Cornella Street, LLC., Diane McClain, RAL Properties, LLC.)

JUDGE: Kevin J. Kerrigan

STATE: New York

COUNTY: Queens County

On July 1, 2002, plaintiff Evelin Rojas and her 2-week-old son, plaintiff Raul Aldave, began living in an apartment that was located on Cornelia Street, in Queens.
On March 17, 2004, Raul underwent a routine test that revealed that his blood's lead concentration measured 21.6 micrograms per deciliter. Such a concentration is more than twice the generally accepted toxicity threshold of 10 mcg/dL. As a result, the New York City Department of Health was contacted, and the apartment was inspected. Lead paint was found, and violations were issued.

Rojas, acting individually and as Raul's parent and natural guardian, sued the building's owner, Diane McClain; McClain's business entity, 1862 Cornelia Street, LLC; and the building's managing agent, RAL Properties, LLC. Rojas alleged that the defendants were negligent in their maintenance of the building and that their negligence created a dangerous condition.

Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently determined that 1862 Cornelia Street was formed after any alleged poisoning was sustained by Raul. Thus, they discontinued the claim against that entity. The matter proceeded against McClain and RAL Properties.
Plaintiffs' counsel claimed that the defendants were aware that the building was constructed before 1960, when lead-based paint was still used on interior surfaces. They also claimed that the defendants were aware that the apartment was occupied by a child who had not reached age 6. They noted that Local Law 1 of 2004 specifies that such conditions require that the landlord conduct annual inspections to determine if such dwellings contain lead-based hazards. Thus, they argued that the defendants were liable for any lead-poisoning that Raul suffered.

The defendants contended that the apartment's paint was in good condition and that it was not peeling or chipping when the apartment was leased to the plaintiffs. They claimed that they acted reasonably, given the circumstances, and that Rojas never reported chipping or peeling paint.

Rojas sought recovery of Raul's future special educational expenses and damages for his past and future pain and suffering. She also presented a derivative claim.
The defense's expert pediatric neurologist determined that Raul did not sustain any injury that stemmed from exposure to lead-based paint.