A judge tore into lawyers for New York City and its troubled public housing agency as they tried Tuesday to weasel out of a class-action suit over lead paint in the city’s housing projects.
Manhattan federal Judge William Pauley III ridiculed claims by the New York City Housing Authority that it couldn’t be held liable for the kids’ suffering because it had stopped conducting mandatory inspections for lead paint.
“Your argument is simply because they didn’t do any inspection, and lied to the government, they are off the hook?” he asked.
“Can you simply stop the inspections … and pretend you don’t have new information? That’s your argument?”
Pauley also scoffed at the city’s contention that it shouldn’t be part of the case, even though Mayor Bill de Blasio last week agreed to fund an extra $1.2 billion in NYCHA repairs.
That deal settled a suit filed by the Manhattan US Attorney’s Office over decrepit and dangerous living conditions in city housing projects — including peeling, flaking and otherwise damaged lead paint.
“The city agrees to pay billions. How can you say the city doesn’t belong as a defendant in this?” Pauley asked.
The suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of four kids who suffered lead poisoning while living in NYCHA projects in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx — and any others who may have been exposed to lead paint in as many as 55,000 tainted apartments.
Last year, the city Department of Investigation revealed that NYCHA repeatedly filed certifications with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development that falsely claimed the apartments had been annually inspected between 2013 and 2016 — and that then-NYCHA Chairwoman Shola Olatoye signed one form despite knowing it wasn’t true.
In its consent decree with the feds, NYCHA last week admitted making “untrue representations” to HUD regarding lead paint safety at least as far back as 2010.
During Tuesday’s hearing, plaintiffs’ lawyer Renner Walker argued to lift the statute of limitations in the case because NYCHA residents were “assured it was OK” to live in their apartments.
NYCHA lawyer Miriam Skolnik claimed the suit should be tossed because “Congress created a very limited cause of action” in such cases.
“They made it very clear — it’s not a duty to inspect, but a duty to disclose what you know,” she said.
City lawyer Mark Muschenheim also said the city and NYCHA were “separate legal entities,” and contended that last week’s deal “doesn’t mean we are necessarily on the hook with the plaintiffs in this case.”
Pauley held off handing down a ruling on defense motions to dismiss the case, and didn’t say when he would decide the matter.
