N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Public Health / ARTICLE Nuisances and Sanitation / TITLE Control of Lead Poisoning
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Health Law § 1373 (2026)

Abatement of lead poisoning conditions

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 1373. Abatement of lead poisoning conditions.  1. Whenever the
commissioner or his or her representative shall designate an area of
high risk, he or she shall give written notice and demand, served as
provided by this section, for the discontinuance of a paint condition
conducive to lead poisoning in any designated dwelling in such area
within a specified period of time.
  2. Such notice and demand shall prescribe the method of discontinuance
of a condition conducive to lead poisoning which may include the removal
of paint containing more than one-half of one per centum of metallic
lead based on the total weight of the contained solids or dried film of
the paint or other similar surface-coating material from surfaces
specified by the commissioner or his representative under such safety
conditions as may be indicated and the refinishing of such surfaces with
a suitable finish which is not in violation of section one thousand
three hundred seventy-two of this title or the covering of such surfaces
with such material or the removal of lead contaminated soils or lead
pipes supplying drinking water as may be deemed necessary to protect the
life and health of occupants of the dwelling.
  3. In the event of failure to comply with a notice and demand, the
commissioner or his or her representative shall take enforcement action
as deemed appropriate by the commissioner or his or her representative,
which may include conducting a formal hearing upon due notice in
accordance with the provisions of section twelve-a of this chapter and
on proof of violation of such notice and demand may order abatement of a
paint condition conducive to lead poisoning upon such terms as may be
appropriate and may assess a penalty not to exceed two thousand five
hundred dollars for such violation; provided, however, that abatement
shall not be ordered if the respondent proves by a preponderance of
evidence at such hearing that a paint condition conducive to lead
poisoning in the designated dwelling does not exist.
  4. A notice required by this section may be served upon an owner or
occupant of the dwelling or agent of the owner in the same manner as a
summons in a civil action or by registered or certified mail to his last
known address or place of residence.
  5. The removal of a tenant from or the surrender by the tenant of a
dwelling with respect to which the commissioner or his representative,
pursuant to subdivision one of this section, has given written notice
and demand for the discontinuance of a paint condition conducive to lead
poisoning shall not absolve, relieve or discharge any persons chargeable
therewith from the obligation and responsibility to discontinue such
paint condition conducive to lead poisoning in accordance with the
method of discontinuance prescribed therefor in such notice and demand.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1999–2013 · leading case: Pelaez v. Seide, 810 N.E.2d 393 (N.Y. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pelaez v. Seide, 810 N.E.2d 393 (N.Y. 2004). · cites it 2× “Insofar as they can compel property owners to abate the nuisance, municipalities have a hand in enforcement (see Public Health Law § 1373), but in all, the Public Health Law is best read to assure that owners, not government, bear the ultimate responsibility for compliance.”
Chapman v. Silber, 760 N.E.2d 329 (N.Y. 2001). “New York State has not enacted similar legislation that imposes a duty on landlords to test for or abate lead-based paint hazards absent official notification of a problem (see, Public Health Law § 1373). We recognize, moreover, that absent explicit legislative authorization we…”
Stover v. Robilotto, 277 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2000). · cites it 3× “First, plaintiff asserts that Public Health Law § 1373 gave decedent the statutory right to enter and the duty to maintain the premises free from lead hazards and that the violation of these provisions constituted constructive notice of the dangerous condition to decedent. This…”
Powell v. Mason, 267 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1999). “Defendants transferred the property to the mortgagee before receiving notice of the presence of lead based paint at the premises, and thus we reject plaintiffs’ contention that defendants are liable for their failure to correct the condition pursuant to Public Health Law § 1373.…”
Chapman v. Silber, 275 A.D.2d 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2000). · cites it 2× “We reject plaintiffs’ argument that Public Health Law § 1373 and the regulations promulgated thereunder establish such a statutory obligation since that section imposes a duty on property owners to abate lead poisoning conditions only after written notice and demand are served…”
McCants v. Thompson, 285 A.D.2d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2001). “*968 Contrary to the contention of the County, Public Health Law § 1373 and 10 NYCRR 67-2.”
Chase v. Pistolese, 190 Misc. 2d 477 (Watertown City Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “The abatement required under this statute, besides addressing “surface-coating material containing lead,” also requires “the removal of lead contaminated soils or lead pipes supplying drinking water as may be deemed necessary to protect the life and health of occupants of the…”
Hines v. Double D & S Realty Mgmt. Corp., 106 A.D.3d 1171 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2013). “Plaintiff did not, however, submit any proof establishing that defendant was aware of such hazards, nor did plaintiff produce an affidavit from anyone attesting to the presence of peeling or chipped paint in the apartment during the relevant time period. To the extent that…”
Hines v. Double D & S Realty Mgmt. Corp., 106 A.D.3d 1171 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2013). “Plaintiff did not, however, submit any proof establishing that defendant was aware of such hazards, nor did plaintiff produce an affidavit from anyone attesting to the presence of peeling or chipped paint in the apartment during the relevant time period. To the extent that…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.