2000 District Court Case Regarding Lead Poisoning

2000 District Court Case Regarding Lead Poisoning
New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning vs. Peter Vallone, as Speaker of NYC Council


New York City Coailtion to End Lead Poisoning vs. Peter Vallone


Back to TOP
.................................................................................................................................................................................

 2001 Appeal of 2000 District Court Ruling
Appeal by Peter Vallone in the case of The NYC Coalition to End Lead Poisoning vs. Peter Vallone

Peter Vallone, as the Speaker of the New York City Council, was hoping to persuade Justice York that although there was no enviornmental impact review, the council did provide enough information and testing to allow the Local Law 38 to be passed into law.  After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice York once again declared that Local Law 38 was not passed into law in accordance with the correct procedure and therefore declared Local Law 38 "null and void."   In an attempt to acheive a middle ground between Local Law 1 and Local Law 38, there have been many new proposals.  Among these proposals is Intro 101.  Intro 101 will be introduced in one of New York City's upcoming Public Health Bills.

2001 Appeal Decision by Justice York


Back to TOP
..............................................................................................................................................................................


Supreme Court 2002 Appeal of  District Court Ruling in 2001 District Court
2nd Appeal by Peter Vallone in the case of The NYC Coalition to End Lead Poisoning vs. Peter Vallone

It was decided by the court that the record amply demonstrated that Peter Vallone and the New York City Council provided sufficient enviornmental testing before passing Local Law 38 into law.  The decision of the prior courts was overturned.  Furthermore it was stated that any laws regarding Lead Paint Poisoning should concentrate on the "containment" of lead paint rather than it's "removal."  The City of New York feels that it would be too costly to remove lead paint from all of the buildings constructed before 1960 because too many of these buildings are existent in our city. Therefore this law was passed with the mindset that Local Law 38 did as much as it could to keep the city's budget as it was and lower the number of children who are poisoned with lead each year.

2002 Case Overturning 2001 District Court Case and Passing Local Law 38


Back to TOP
.............................................................................................................................................................................

NYC Lawsuits and Settlement Process Information
Interview with Law Firm

Despite the passing of Local Law 38 many lawsuits are still being filed in New York City by tenants against their landlords.  When a law firm interviews a client and it is found that a child under six years of age is in an apartment in which there is peeling lead paint, the firm sends a crew to test the lead paint in accordance with New York City law.  If it is found that a child's lead blood content is over the amount stated by NYC law (Regulations) the child is then referred to a doctor by the law firm.  If it is found that the landlord has not complied with Local Law 38, the landlord is liable.  Lawyers then look at the case from two different aspects.  First the firm looks at the liability of the landlord for exposing a child to such harmful lead levels.  Once this has been taken into account, the firm explores the damages suffered by the child and his/her family.  This anonymous law firm stated that most of their cases are won.  Yet they also stated that most of their cases do not go to court; they settle out of court.  They also hinted that the landlords who settle out of court try their hardest to keep cases quiet so that they are not overcome with lawsuits by all tenants in the building who have children under six years of age.  This firm further stated that they do have a great number of cases with clients over seven years of age.  The oldest clients can be no older than twenty one years of age because the law states an age limit for persons looking to be compensated for their lead poisoning.  The firm stated that the older the client, the harder it is for them to win the case.  Sufficient evidence is hard to come by when the firm must investigate when, and to what extent a client was poisoned. Furthermore the firm must investigate how the lead has had a damaging effect on the client's life.  Therefore if a child is thought to be poisoned it is recommended that the child seeks attention and compensation at a young age when they are more likely to be successful in a court of law.

*** Due to a specific request, no raw data or contact information could be posted. ***


Back to TOP

.........................................................................................................................................................................

CONCLUSION
Overall, is New York City doing enough to rectify it's current Lead Poisoning Problem?

When New York City asks itself whether or not it is doing enough to rectify it's Lead Problem, it must first be decided what exactly is ENOUGH? The comparison between asbestos and lead are unavoidable.  Both substances have been recently discovered to be toxic, yet each substance has been treated differently.  Asbestos has been completely removed from schools, office buildings, and houses where there was a possiblity that ANYONE would come in contact with it.  By comparison the city is certainly not doing enough to rectify the lead problem.  The ways in which an individual may become lead poisoned (Basics) outnumber the one basic way to become poisoned with asbestos (inhalation).  Yet the laws for lead poisoning demand the removal of lead paint only in specific circumstances (Regulations). New York City, because of the great number of old buildings (constructed before 1960) should be expected to have the one of the highest lead poisoning rates in the country.  Yet suprisingly, there are cities that have higher lead levels and higher rates of lead poisoning (Data).  The basics of lead poisoning and the comparison between rates of lead poisoning throughout the country do not answer the question of whether or not New York City is doing enough to rectify the problem.  The answer lies in the efforts of private groups, such as the Enviornmental Protection Agency or NYPIRG.  These groups have certainly done a great deal to make citizens of New York City aware of the lead problem we face and do a good job lobbying; trying to persuade the City Council to vote on stronger lead laws.  The greatest evidence that New York City is currently not doing nearly enough to rectify our lead problem lies in the laws and court decisions.  Recently, New York City has passed a law that makes lead paint removal in apartments easily avoidable by landlords.  It seemed at one point that the Judicial System was doing enough to aid the problem when it decided to reverse the lead law back to the prior and stricter law.  Yet the Judicial System then reversed it's own decision and the lesser of the two Lead Laws was reinstated. All signs seem to point towards the conclusion that New York City is not doing enough to rectify its Lead Problem.  Although there have been attempts by private groups to aid the problem, until the government passes stricter laws and enforces them, New York City will still have a dangerous lead problem.  There are laws in the making that will aid New York City in its plight to reduce the number of children poisoned by lead each year.  Yet until these laws are passed and  enforced will we be able to come to the justified conclusion that New York City is doing enough to rectify it's Lead Poisoning Problem.  As of today New York City is not.