Release #251 -99

Contact: Sunny Mindel/Samantha I. Lugo (212) 788-2958

Proposal Would Require Landlords To Inspect For And Repair Lead Paint Hazards

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani today called upon the City Council to enact lead paint reform legislation currently pending in the City Council's Housing & Buildings Committee, which would require, for the first time, landlords to annually inspect apartment units with young children for lead paint hazards, and correct such hazards in a reasonable and safe manner. Commissioners Richard Roberts of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development and Dr. Neal Cohen of the New York City Department of Health joined the Mayor in urging the Council to pass the bill.

"The bill now before City Council is a scientific and incentive based approach that will do away with the confusing, burdensome and unsafe mandates under the current lead paint law, Local Law 1 of 1982," Mayor Giuliani said. "The current law is governed by the dangerous lead free approach, which requires landlords to abate lead paint that is intact. All health experts agree that this procedure is a major public health hazard. The proposed bill would adopt a lead safe approach, which would require landlords to remove paint that is presumed to be lead based, if the paint is peeling or on a deteriorating surface."

"Moreover, the bill will, for the first time, require the City to address lead paint problems when a landlord cannot. The City is taking on a massive regulatory responsibility by inspecting, re-inspecting and correcting lead paint violations in private apartments," the Mayor continued.

Commissioner Cohen said, "This bill represents an incentive-based and workable approach to reducing lead hazards, and contains many important advances over the existing lead paint law. Most importantly, from a public health perspective, it incorporates key principles of a responsible, health-based approach."

Commissioner Roberts said, "This bill will also, for the first time, require landlords to send notices to tenants in older apartment buildings asking whether a child under six resides in the apartment, and then inspect for peeling paint if a child does, in fact, live in the apartment."

The bill does the following:

• The bill creates a presumption, which may be rebutted by an owner, which all paint in multiple dwelling units built before 1960 where a child under six resides is lead-based paint. The bill defines lead-based paint hazard as peeling paint, or paint on a deteriorated subsurface, such as rotting wood, in multiple dwelling units built before 1960 where a child under six resides.
• The bill also creates new a system whereby owners of pre-1960 multiple dwellings must provide annual notice to tenants to inform the owner if a child under six resides in the dwelling unit, similar to the current window guard notice. If the tenant informs the owner that a child of such age does reside in the unit, or if the owner otherwise has actual knowledge that such child lives there, the owner must provide for an annual inspection to detect peeling paint.
• If a tenant complains to HPD about peeling paint, or paint on a deteriorated subsurface, in a pre-1960 unit with a child under six, the bill provides that HPD will inspect the dwelling unit within 10 or 15 days of its receipt of the complaint, depending on the season. If peeling paint is found, an HPD inspector will issue a notice of lead hazard violation within 20 days of the inspection. Unless the owner can rebut the presumption of lead paint, he or she will be responsible for quickly removing the lead hazard.
• When an owner receives a violation, he or she must correct the condition within 21 days using the safety practices, or "interim controls," prescribed in the bill. Such interim controls include removing all movable objects from the work areas and covering the floor with plastic; wet scraping all peeling paint and repairing all deteriorated subsurfaces; HEPA vacuuming the floors in the work area or detergent washing those areas, repainting all affected areas, and performing a lead dust wipe test in certain areas upon concluding the work.
• If the owner fails to correct the condition within 21 days, an additional 15 day period is provided. However, during the 15 day period the work must be performed using the full panoply of provisions of the Health Code.
• An owner will also be required, for the very first time, to use the interim controls in situations where the owner voluntarily corrects a lead-based paint hazard where no violation has been issued by HPD, such as when the units in pre-1960 multiple dwellings become vacant.
• The bill also provides that owners must certify correction of lead hazard violations to HPD, and that complainants must receive a copy of the owner's certification. Under the bill, HPD will attempt to reinspect all certifications of lead hazard violations within 30 days of receipt of the certification.
• The bill further provides that where a violation has been falsely certified, an owner may be liable for a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $25,000 for each such certification, and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and/or one year imprisonment.
• Under the bill, when an owner fails to certify correction of a lead violation, HPD will perform the work within 60 days of the date the owner fails to certify. A lien for the cost of the work will be placed against the building pursuant to existing provisions of the Housing Maintenance Code. In addition, the legislation provides that the owner will be liable for civil penalties for failure to correct the violation.
• The bill requires HPD to report to the City Council after the close of the first full fiscal year following the bill's effective date on the results of HPD's enforcement of the bill during that fiscal year.
• HPD must provide the occupant of the dwelling unit with a pamphlet with DOH's telephone number, and DOH must then refer any child whose parent requests a referral for lead screening. HPD must also develop and serve along with the notice of violation, a pamphlet to the property owner that outlines the interim controls for tier one, as well as the work practices required under the Health Code, or tier two.
• The sole remedy against the City for failing to perform any regulatory duty, such as reinspecting within the prescribed time frame, is an article 78 proceeding. This does not limit the City's liability as an owner, nor does this impact upon private landlords.