United States v. Lead Paint Safety Regulations, et al.

DAMIAN WILLIAMS   LETITIA JAMES
United States Attorney for the   New York State Attorney General
Southern District of New York  By:  JANE LANDRY-REYES
By:  ZACHARY BANNON             Assistant Attorney General
        JACOB LILLYWHITE           BRENT MELTZER, Chief,
Assistant United States Attorneys           Housing Protection Unit
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor   28 Liberty Street
New York, New York 10007    New York, NY  10005
Tel.:  (212) 637-2728/2800    Tel.:  (212) 416-8220/6096
Fax: (212) 637-2750    Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]  Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK, by LETITIA JAMES, New York State
Attorney General,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LILMOR MANAGEMENT LLC, MORRIS LIEBERMAN, 45-55
REALTY LLC, 55 WINTHROP ST LLC, 130 CLARKSON
REALTY LLC, 250-251 E 29 REALTY LLC, 251 E 29 ST LLC,
1590 W 8 ST LLC, 105 AVE P REALTY LLC, 888 REALTY LLC,
100 LINDEN REALTY LLC, 131 REALTY LLC, C & Z REALTY
LLC, 2003 REALTY LLC, 1429 CARROLL STREET LLC, 59
LOGAN ST LLC, 1269 E 18 STREET REALTY LLC, 334
EASTERN PKWY REALTY LLC, 840 REALTY LLC, 1909
REALTY LLC, 333 REALTY LLC, 1633 WEST 10TH REALTY
LLC, ALIT REALTY LLC, 1301 AVENUE K REALTY LLC,
1311 AVENUE K REALTY LLC, P BIGG REALTY LLC, 354 E
21ST ST REALTY CORP, E & S REALTY MANAGEMENT LLC,
915 84TH STREET LLC, 2001 AVENUE P LLC, 2065 OCEAN
AVENUE LLC, 1690 PRESIDENT STREET LLC, 645 REALTY
LLC, 3402 REALTY LLC, 1439 REALTY LLC, 103-25 120 ST
REALTY LLC, 20-30 MERLE REALTY LLC, 1921 REALTY
LLC, 410 WESTMINSTER LLC, 580-585 REALTY LLC, 2251
REALTY LLC, 209 REALTY LLC, 40-71 REALTY LLC, 712
REALTY LLC, 723 REALTY LLC, 2420 REALTY LLC, 1684
REALTY LLC, 1660 REALTY LLC, 1011 NEILSON REALTY
LLC, 1012 NAMEOKE REALTY LLC,

Defendants.

        COMPLAINT

        24 Civ. 9520

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................................... 3

PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 3

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 4

I. Unsafe Housing and Public Health ............................................................... 4

II. The Lieberman/Lilmor Portfolio of Substandard Housing ........................... 7

III. Federal Lead Paint Safety Regulations ......................................................... 8

IV. State and Local Lead Paint Safety Regulations .......................................... 14

V. State and Local Housing Quality Laws ....................................................... 18

VI. State General Business Law: Deceptive Business Practices ....................... 21

VII. State Executive Law: Fraud or Illegality ..................................................... 21

VIII. Public Nuisance ........................................................................................... 22

DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATIONS OF LEAD PAINT SAFETY REGULATIONS ...................... 23

I. Defendants’ Violations of the Lead Disclosure Rule .................................. 24

II. Lilmor and Lieberman’s Violations of the RRP Rule ................................. 26

III. Defendants’ Violations of State and Local Lead-Based Paint Law ............ 32

IV. At Least 130 Children Have Suffered Lead Poisoning in These Buildings 35

DEFENDANTS SUBJECT THEIR TENANTS TO UNSAFE AND UNSANITARY
CONDITIONS; VIOLATE STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING LAW; AND MAINTAIN A
PUBLIC NUISANCE ................................................................................................................... 36

DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES
....................................................................................................................................................... 43

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................ 44

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................... 54

Plaintiff the United States of America (the “United States” or the “Government”), on behalf

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (“HUD”) on the counts indicated below, by its attorney, Damian Williams,

United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Plaintiff the People of the State

of New York (the “State” or the “State of New York”), by their attorney, Letitia James, New York

State Attorney General, allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Across more than 2,500 apartments in New York City, landlord Morris Lieberman

(“Lieberman”), his management company Lilmor Management LLC (“Lilmor”), and owners of

properties managed by Lilmor (the “LLC Defendants”1) have disregarded federal, state, and local

lead paint safety laws, failed to meet basic health and safety standards, and maintained a public

nuisance.  Many apartments that Lieberman rents are riddled with peeling lead paint and lead dust;

infested by rats, mice, and roaches; damp from perpetual leaks and covered with growing mold;

and otherwise a danger to human health.  His victims, first and foremost, are his residents, many

of whom are people of limited means and live in communities disproportionately burdened by

environmental and other health hazards.

2. Lead paint is toxic.  There is no level of lead in the human body that is safe for

children.  When children ingest lead paint flakes or dust from deteriorated lead paint, they can

suffer lifelong neurological and other severe injuries.  To avoid these devastating consequences,

most housing built before 1978—including about 2,500 apartments in buildings controlled by

Lieberman and managed by Lilmor (and hundreds more apartments that Lieberman formerly

1 The LLC Defendants are those entities listed in the caption of this case, apart from Lilmor and
Lieberman.

2

controlled or Lilmor formerly managed)—is subject to strict federal lead paint regulations that

require landlords to warn tenants of this severe health risk and to take precautions to reduce the

risk of poisoning by lead dust generated when performing maintenance.  New York state and New

York City law impose additional lead paint safety regulations requiring investigation and

remediation activities.  For years, Defendants have flouted these federal, state, and local lead paint

safety regulations.  At least 130 children have suffered lead poisoning while living in Lieberman’s

buildings since 2012, according to New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

(“DOHMH”) records—a number that almost certainly understates the total number of poisoned

children.

3. Beyond the failure to comply with federal, state, and local lead paint safety

regulations, Lieberman and Lilmor maintain dangerous and unsanitary conditions in their

buildings.  Many tenants live without proper heat in the winter; with mold on their walls and

ceilings; collapsing ceilings due to unaddressed leaks; and cockroach and rodent infestations.

Since 2012, New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) has

issued thousands of violations for unsafe conditions in Defendants’ buildings.  These conditions

present a direct threat to the health and safety of tenants and amount to a public nuisance.

4. The United States brings this civil action to redress the unsafe and unsanitary

conditions in these buildings.  It seeks injunctive and other equitable relief for violations of the

federal Lead Disclosure Rule (24 C.F.R. part 35, subpart A, and 40 C.F.R. part 745, subpart F) and

the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule (40 C.F.R. part 745, subpart E), and an order requiring

Defendants to abate the public nuisance.

5.  The State joins this civil action, seeking injunctive and other equitable relief for

Defendants’ repeated violations of the New York City Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act

3

(“Local Law One”), see NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.1 et seq.; the NYC Asthma Free Housing

Act (“Local Law 55”), see NYC Admin. Code § 27-2017 et seq.; the NYC Housing Maintenance

Code (the “Housing Maintenance Code” or “HMC”), see NYC Admin. Code § 27-2001, et seq.;

the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law (the “Multiple Dwelling Law” or “MDL”), see MDL

§ 25 et seq., and the New York State Real Property Law (the “Real Property Law” or “RPL”), see

RPL § 235-b.  The State also seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, restitution on behalf of

tenants, and civil penalties from Defendants for their repeated and persistent violations of the local

and state housing codes; relief for violating New York State General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349

through deceptive business practices relating to these matters; and an order requiring Defendants

to abate the public nuisance.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of  the federal claims in this

action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2616, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 42 U.S.C. § 4852d.  It has

subject matter jurisdiction over the State’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2616(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b)(1), (c)(2), and (d), because all Defendants reside in this State and at least one resides in

this district; because certain of the violations alleged in the complaint occurred in this district; and

because some or all Defendants transact business or may be found in this district.  Furthermore,

Defendants have expressly consented to venue in this district in a consent decree to be filed

contemporaneously with this complaint.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiffs are the United States of America and the People of the State of New York.

4

9. Defendant Morris Lieberman has owned—in whole or part, through special

purpose vehicles—and has controlled residential multi-family apartment buildings in New York

City, including in the Southern District of New York.

10. Defendant Lilmor Management LLC is a residential property management

company controlled and partially owned by Lieberman.  It has managed buildings owned by

Lieberman in New York City, including in the Southern District of New York, as well as buildings

owned by third parties.

11. The LLC Defendants are special-purpose vehicles that have nominally owned

buildings in New York City, including in the Southern District of New York, that are managed by

Lilmor.  In many cases these LLCs are owned in whole or part by Lieberman.

BACKGROUND

I.  Unsafe Housing and the Public Health

12. Environmental hazards in the home threaten millions of people in the United States.

13. Chief among these hazards is lead paint.2  Lead is toxic, and lead poisoning—

particularly in children—can have devastating, lifelong effects.  Children are easily poisoned in

the home when they put lead paint flakes in their mouths or ingest lead-contaminated dust.  A

child’s exposure to even small amounts of lead can cause irreversible neurological problems,

including learning disabilities, reduced attention span, and behavioral problems.  Even for adults,

ingestion of small amounts of lead can cause or exacerbate serious health conditions, including

cancer, hypertension, and kidney failure.

2 The terms “lead paint” and “lead paint hazards” as used in this complaint shall have the same
meaning as, and are used interchangeably with, the terms “lead-based paint” and “lead-based paint
hazards,” respectively, as defined in 24 C.F.R. §§ 35.86 and 35.110 and 40 C.F.R. §§ 745.103 and
745.223, as applicable to federal claims, and NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.2(7)(b) and 28
R.C.N.Y. § 11-01(t)(2), as applicable to state and local claims.

5

14. In 1992, Congress found that “low-level lead poisoning is widespread among

American children, afflicting as many as 3,000,000 children under age 6, with minority and low-

income communities disproportionately affected,” 42 U.S.C. § 4851(1), and that even “at low

levels, lead poisoning in children causes intelligence quotient deficiencies, reading and learning

disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity, and behavior problems,” id.

§ 4851(2).

15. In 2004, the New York City Council found that childhood lead poisoning from paint

was a preventable public health crisis.

16. Beyond lead paint, other substandard living conditions threaten residents’ health,

including by exacerbating asthma.  In 2018, in response to high incidence of debilitating asthma

rates, especially amongst children in low-income communities of color, New York City enacted

Local Law 55, which requires owners of multiple dwellings with three or more dwelling units to

keep their tenants’ apartments free of mold and pests, including by fixing underlying conditions

that lead to these problems.  See NYC Admin. Code §27-2017 et seq.  One study suggests that

close to 80% of asthma in children is exacerbated by poor housing conditions such as from

deteriorated paint and walls, mold, and presence of cockroaches, mice and other pests.3

17. Other deficient housing conditions also impact health and safety of occupants.  For

example, a lack of heat in winter threatens the health of the elderly in particular as they have high

rates of cold-related hospitalizations.

3 The Coalition for Asthma Free Homes, The Impact of Poor Housing Conditions on the Health of
Asthmatic New Yorkers, 4, last https://takerootjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/
CAFHReport_20may09.pdf (accessed July 3, 2024).

https://takerootjustice.org/%E2%80%8Cwp-content/uploads/%E2%80%8C2019/06/%E2%80%8CCAFHReport%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C_20may09.pdf
https://takerootjustice.org/%E2%80%8Cwp-content/uploads/%E2%80%8C2019/06/%E2%80%8CCAFHReport%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C_20may09.pdf

6

18. It has long been “the policy of the United States” to “promote the goal of providing

decent and affordable housing for all citizens.”  42 U.S.C. § 1437(a)(4).  While the responsibility

to ensure decent housing is shared among federal, state, tribal, and local governments and the

private sector, “the Federal Government should act where there is a serious need that private

citizens or groups cannot or are not addressing responsibly.”  42 U.S.C. § 1437(a)(3).  Federal

efforts to ensure  occupants have safe living conditions include EPA’s and HUD’s lead-based paint

regulations.  See infra Part III.  More generally, however, the law has long recognized that

widespread, substandard housing conditions may constitute a public nuisance, and the United

States may sue to compel the abatement of nuisances that affect federal interests.  See infra Part

VII(a).

19. Similarly, state and local policy underscore the importance of safe and affordable

housing, including as provided by Local Law One (for lead paint) and Local Law 55 (for asthma),

and other essential health and safety requirements of the City’s Housing Maintenance Code and

the State’s Multiple Dwelling Law. See infra Parts IV & V.  The New York State Attorney General

also has authority to sue to enjoin “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts” or “persistent fraud or

illegality” in “the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business,” Executive Law § 63(12),

including non-compliance with local housing quality laws; to sue to enjoin deceptive acts or

practices in the conduct of business, GBL § 349(b), including with respect to deceptive

communications regarding housing quality issues; and to sue for abatement of a public nuisance

under both Executive Law § 63(12) and as parens patriae.

20. Moreover, both the federal and state governments recognize that unsafe and

unsanitary housing may impact overburdened and underserved populations, including low-income

populations.

7

II. The Lieberman/Lilmor Portfolio of Substandard Housing

21. Lieberman owns, controls, and profits from a residential real estate portfolio that

subjects residents to deficient conditions, including systematic violations of federal, state, and local

lead paint safety regulations.  Lieberman’s agent has been included in the New York City Public

Advocate’s list of the worst landlords in New York City.

22. Lieberman controls—and, in most cases, owns in whole or in part indirectly

through special purpose vehicles—about 2,500 rent-regulated apartments in 47 residential

buildings in New York City.  At other times since 2012, he has also owned and/or controlled about

250 additional apartments in nine other apartment buildings.  These combined 56 buildings are

listed in Exhibit A to this complaint.  The buildings are largely located in communities where

families have low to moderate incomes and that are disproportionately burdened by environmental

and other health hazards.

23. Lieberman exercises much of his control over these buildings through Defendant

Lilmor.  Lieberman founded and personally controls Lilmor; Lieberman and his wife are each 50%

owners of the firm.

24. Lilmor is the current building manager for each of the buildings on Exhibit A that

are identified as currently managed or controlled by Lieberman.  For the buildings identified on

Exhibit A no longer managed or controlled by Lieberman, Lilmor was the building manager when

it was managed or controlled by Lieberman.  As building manager, Lilmor is responsible for key

functions relevant to health and safety in these buildings, including performing maintenance and

repairs, as well as for acting as the owner’s agent for the purpose of making legally required

disclosures to tenants regarding lead paint.  Lilmor receives tenant requests regarding necessary

repairs or maintenance in the buildings, as well as notices of violations of health, safety, and

8

housing standards from local government agencies.   Lilmor, as an agent of Lieberman and the

LLC Defendants, executes leases with residents in these buildings.

25. The LLC Defendants are special purpose vehicles that, at various points since 2012,

have nominally owned buildings Lieberman controls or controlled, as indicated on Exhibit A.

Lieberman also owns, in whole or part, and controls the majority of the LLC Defendants that

appear on Exhibit A.

26. As described below, Lieberman and Lilmor’s violations of federal, state, and local

lead laws; their violation of state and local housing codes; and their maintenance of a public

nuisance arise from policies and practices that impact and have impacted the entire

Lieberman/Lilmor residential portfolio.

III. Federal Lead Paint Safety Regulations

27. In 1977, the federal government banned the use of lead-containing paint in

residences built in 1978 or later.  16 C.F.R. Part 1303.  Lead paint had been frequently used in

residences prior to that date and continues to be present in pre-1978 residential buildings across

the country.

28. Lead poisoning is a serious health problem in the New York metropolitan area.

Each year, thousands of children under the age of six test are reported with elevated blood lead

levels.4

4 For the purpose of this complaint, the terms “lead poisoning” and “elevated blood lead level”
refer to blood lead levels that equal or exceed 5 micrograms per deciliter, the applicable blood lead
level reference value established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”)
between 2012 and 2021.  In 2021, the CDC reference value was lowered further to 3.5 micrograms
per deciliter. Elevated blood lead levels are also currently defined by local law as 3.5 micrograms
per deciliter or above.

9

29. In 1992, Congress enacted a “broad program to evaluate and reduce lead-based

paint hazards in the Nation’s housing stock,” and “to ensure that the existence of lead-based paint

hazards is taken into account . . . in the sale, rental, and renovation of homes and apartments.”  42

U.S.C. § 4851a(2), (4).

30. Among other things, Congress directed EPA and HUD to promulgate regulations

requiring disclosure of information concerning lead paint to tenants and purchasers of pre-1978

property and amended the Toxic Substances Control Act to provide for EPA to promulgate

additional lead paint safety regulations applicable to the general public.  Residential Lead-Based

Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, Title X, § 1018 (codified at 42 U.S.C.

§ 4852d); id. § 1021 (codified at 15 U.S.C. subch. IV).

31. Pursuant to these authorities, EPA and HUD promulgated the key federal lead paint

regulations at issue here: the Lead Disclosure Rule and the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule.

A. The Lead Disclosure Rule

32. In 1996, HUD and EPA promulgated substantively identical versions of the “Lead

Disclosure Rule.”  24 C.F.R. part 35, subpart A (HUD’s Lead Disclosure Rule); 40 C.F.R. part 745,

subpart F (EPA’s Lead Disclosure Rule).

33. The Lead Disclosure Rule requires landlords and their agents to provide disclosures

concerning lead paint to prospective tenants prior to signing a new lease (or, in some cases, a

renewal lease) in “target housing.”  “Target housing” means most housing constructed before

1978.  Housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities and zero-bedroom dwellings (unless any

child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing) are currently

excepted.  42 U.S.C. § 4851b(17); 15 U.S.C. § 2681(17).

34. Among other things, the Lead Disclosure Rule requires a landlord to provide the

following information and documentation to prospective tenants prior to entering into a lease:

10

• [A]n EPA-approved pamphlet that warns prospective tenants about the dangers of
lead-based paint and provides advice on how to limit those risks.  24 C.F.R.
§ 35.88(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 745.107(a)(1).

• A “lead warning statement” contained in federal regulations that warns prospective
tenants of the dangers of lead paint.  24 C.F.R. § 35.92(a)(1); 40 C.F.R.
§ 745.113(b)(1).

• “[A]ny . . . information available [to the landlord] concerning . . . known lead-based
paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, such as the basis for the determination that
lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards exist, the location of the lead-based
paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, and the condition of the painted surfaces.”  24
C.F.R. § 35.88(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 745.107(a)(2).

• All records or reports regarding lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards,
including the results of inspections.  24 C.F.R. § 35.88(a)(4); 40 C.F.R.
§ 745.107(a)(4).

35. The information required to be disclosed by the Lead Disclosure Rule includes not

only information related to the prospective tenant’s apartment but also information relating to

common areas accessible to a tenant of that apartment.  24 C.F.R. § 35.88(a)(4); 40 C.F.R.

§ 745.107(a)(4).

36. The purpose of the Lead Disclosure Rule is to enable tenants to take steps to protect

themselves and their families in light of the knowledge of the potential or actual presence of lead-

based paint or lead-based paint hazards in their apartments.

37. For example, before a family becomes a tenant in an apartment that has lead-based

paint or lead-based paint hazards, it may decide not to become obligated under the lease and not

move in.  Alternatively, the family may attempt to reach agreement with the landlord, prior to

signing the lease or occupying the apartment, to control any hazards or abate lead paint as a

condition to the effectiveness of the lease.

38. Even after moving into a unit with actual or potential lead paint or lead paint

hazards, families can take specific steps to minimize the risks posed by lead paint, as described in

11

the Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home pamphlet that is required to be provided to

prospective tenants under the Lead Disclosure Rule.  These measures include the following:

• Always keep painted surfaces in good condition to minimize deterioration.

• Keep painted surfaces clean and free of dust.  Clean floors, window frames,
windowsills, and other surfaces weekly.  Use a mop or sponge with warm water and
a general all-purpose cleaner.

• Thoroughly rinse sponges and mop heads often during cleaning of dirty or dusty
areas, and again afterward.

• Carefully clean up paint chips immediately without creating dust.

• Talk to the landlord about fixing surfaces with peeling or chipping paint.

39. Moreover, the pamphlet recommends specific steps that tenants can take to

minimize risks to children:

• Wash children’s hands often, especially before they eat and before nap time and
bedtime.

• Keep play areas clean.  Wash bottles, pacifiers, toys, and stuffed animals regularly.

• Keep children from chewing windowsills or other painted surfaces.

• Take precautions to avoid exposure to lead dust when remodeling.

40. Finally, the pamphlet also contains the critical recommendation that families should

“consult their health care provider about testing their children for lead.”

B. The Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule

41. Renovation and maintenance work that disturbs lead paint can expose tenants,

visitors, and workers to toxic lead dust and debris.

42. To address this health threat, in 2008, EPA promulgated the Renovation, Repair,

and Painting (“RRP”) Rule, 40 C.F.R. part 745, subpart E.  For renovations (including maintenance

work) covered by the rule, the RRP Rule imposes strict requirements regarding (a) training and

12

certification; (b) notice to tenants; (c) preparation of the work area; (d) work practices used to

disturb the painted surface; (e) cleaning of the work area; and (f) recordkeeping.

43. The rule applies to “renovations” for compensation in pre-1978 “target housing,”

except where the work area has been tested and found to be free of lead.  40 C.F.R. § 745.82.

Target housing is thus presumed to contain lead-based paint unless testing has demonstrated to the

contrary.

44. “Renovation” is defined broadly to include “the modification of any existing

structure, or portion thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted surfaces” and includes work

such as “the removal of building components (e.g., walls, ceilings, plumbing, windows)” and

“[t]he removal, modification or repair of painted surfaces or painted components (e.g.,

modification of painted doors, surface restoration, window repair, surface preparation activity

(such as sanding, scraping, or other such activities that may generate paint dust)).”  40 C.F.R.

§ 745.83.  Certain de minimis work referred to as “minor repair and maintenance activities” is

excluded from the definition of “renovation,” including most interior work affecting six or fewer

square feet of painted surfaces.  Id.

45. The RRP Rule requires that a firm performing covered renovations obtain an EPA

certification and assign an EPA-certified renovator to perform certain specified tasks and to

supervise or direct the work generally.  Id. §§ 745.81(a)(3), 745.89(d)(2), 745.90(a).  The certified

renovator must provide on-the-job training in lead-safe work practices to all workers performing

renovations who are not themselves certified renovators.  Id. §§ 745.81(a)(3), 745.89(d)(1).  The

rule also requires distribution to tenants of information about lead-safe work practices and the

dangers of lead hazards, id. § 745.84; requires renovation firms to obtain written acknowledgement

13

of receipt of such information by tenants, id. § 745.84; and requires the posting of warning signs,

id. §§ 745.84(b)(2)(ii), 745.85(a)(1).

46. Before renovation work begins, the RRP Rule requires that the work area be

isolated to contain lead dust, id. § 745.85(a)(2), including (when inside an apartment), by covering

the floor surface in the work area with plastic sheeting or similar protection, id.

§ 745.85(a)(2)(i)(D); by removing all objects from the work area or covering them, id.

§ 745.85(a)(2)(i)(A); by closing and covering all ducts in the work area, id. § 745.85(a)(2)(i)(B);

and by closing windows and doors in the work area and covering such doors with plastic sheeting,

id. § 745.85(a)(2)(i)(C).

47. The RRP Rule also prohibits the use of certain methods and machines that generate

dust or debris.  Id. § 745.85(a)(3).

48. As waste is generated during renovations, the RRP Rule requires that it be

contained and disposed of in a manner that prevents the release of dust and debris outside the work

area.  Id. § 745.85(a)(4).

49. After the renovation work is complete, the RRP Rule requires that the work area be

cleaned to eliminate all dust, debris, and residue, id. § 745.85(a)(5), including (when inside an

apartment) by collecting and sealing paint chips and debris, id. § 745.85(a)(5)(i)(A); carefully

removing and disposing of the protective sheeting used to isolate the work area, id.

§ 745.85(a)(5)(i)(B); cleaning the walls with a damp cloth or HEPA vacuum, id.

§ 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(A); vacuuming, with a HEPA vacuum, all remaining surfaces and objects,

including furniture, id. § 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(B); and wiping all remaining surfaces and objects with a

damp cloth and mopping uncarpeted floors, id. § 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(C).

14

50. To ensure cleaning of the work area was adequate, the RRP Rule requires careful

verification of cleaning by a certified renovator, id. § 745.85(b), including (when inside an

apartment) visual inspection to determine whether dust, debris, or residue remains, id.

§ 745.85(b)(1)(i); and the wiping of windowsills, uncarpeted floors, and countertops in the work

area with a cloth and comparison of the color of the wiped cloth to the color of an EPA cleaning

verification card, id. § 745.85(b)(1)(ii).

51. Finally, the RRP Rule requires that the firm conducting renovation work document

its compliance with the RRP Rule and maintain those records for at least three years.  Id. § 745.86.

IV. State and Local Lead Paint Safety Regulations

52. The NYC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act, otherwise known as Local

Law One, imposes obligations on owners of multi-family residential properties related to notice

and management of lead-based paint.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.1 et seq.  Local Law One

focuses on “primary prevention, which means eliminating lead hazards before children are

exposed” because that is an “essential tool to combat childhood lead poisoning,” and on identifying

children who are most at risk.  See NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.1 (Statement of Findings and

Purposes).5

53.  The Act establishes a rebuttable presumption that the paint in apartments that were

built prior to January 1, 1960 (when New York City first imposed limits the level of lead in paint

5 In 1992, the State amended existing Public Health Law to authorize the State Health
Commissioner as well as local county health departments and local housing code agencies to order
removal of paint “conditions conducive to lead poisoning” and also to require mandatory blood
lead level screenings for children.  N.Y. Public Health Law §§ 1370–1376-a.  In New York City,
Local Law One, together with the New York City Health Code, 24 R.C.N.Y. § 173.13-14,
governing safety standards for work that disturbs lead paint, exceed the minimum requirements of
the corresponding New York state law.  Accordingly, references herein to state and local lead paint
safety regulations will be to New York City local law.

15

used in homes), where a child under six resides, is “lead based paint.”  Id. § 27-2056.5; see also

24 R.C.N.Y. § 173.14(b).  The presumption may be rebutted, or a building maybe exempted from

some requirements of the Act, if the owner submits evidence to HPD that there is no lead-based

paint in the building.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.5(a), (b).

54. The Act requires owners of these apartment buildings where children under six

reside “to prevent the reasonably foreseeable occurrence” of lead-based paint hazards and

expeditiously remediate those hazards.  Id. § 27-2056.3.

55. As of January 1, 2020, “resides” means that a child routinely spends 10 or more

hours per week in an apartment.  Id. § 27-2056.2(12); see also 28 R.C.N.Y. §11-01(bb).

56. The term “owner” includes an “agent, or any other person, firm or corporation,

directly or indirectly in control of a dwelling.”  Id. § 27-2004(45).

57. As explained below, among other things, Local Law One imposes obligations on

owners of multi-family residential properties to provide notice of potential lead paint hazards and

also imposes additional affirmative obligations to inquire about whether any children under six

years of age reside in apartments under an owner’s control, and to investigate, inspect, and

remediate and/or abate any lead-based paint to eliminate lead hazards before children are exposed

or lead poisoned.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.1 et seq.

A. Occupant Inquiry and Investigation Requirements

58. The annual inquiry and investigation requirements of Local Law One apply to

apartment buildings with at least three apartments that were either: (1) built before January 1, 1960

(unless the presumption of lead-based paint has been rebutted or the building or apartment has

been exempted by HPD); or (2) built between January 1, 1960 and January 1, 1978 if the owner

has actual knowledge of the presence of lead paint.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(a).

16

59. Owners of these apartment buildings are required to ascertain whether a child under

six resides in a dwelling unit by providing a notice to tenants inquiring as to whether a child under

the age of six resides or will reside in the apartment.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(d)(1).

Owners are required to make these inquiries at the signing of an initial lease, at renewal leases, or

upon any agreement to lease.  Id.; see also 28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-03(a)(1).

60. Thereafter, between January 1 and January 16 of each year, the owner must again

send this notice to tenants inquiring as to whether a child under six years old resides within a unit.

NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(e)(1).  If the owner does not receive a response from the occupant

by February 15 and the owner does not “otherwise have actual knowledge” as to whether a child

under the age of six resides therein, the owner must “at reasonable times and upon reasonable

notice,” inspect the occupant’s apartment to determine whether a child of applicable age lives

there.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(e)(3)(i). Owners are obligated “when necessary, [to]

conduct an investigation in order to make that determination.”  Id.  If the owner’s investigation is

unsuccessful by March 1, they are required to notify DOHMH.  Id. § 27-2056.4(e)(3)(i); see also

28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-03(b).

B. Lead-Based Paint Investigation Requirement

61. Local Law One further requires owners to conduct investigations at least annually

for “peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deteriorated sub surfaces, friction surfaces, and impact

surfaces” in apartments and common areas of buildings subject to Local Law One where they have

been notified or they have actual knowledge that a child under six resides.  NYC Admin. Code

§ 27-2056.4(a).  Owners must expeditiously remediate all lead-based paint hazards and underlying

defects identified.  Id. § 27-2056.3.  As discussed above, the owner must take steps to ascertain

whether a child under six years old resides within a dwelling unit, if unknown.

17

62. Local Law One also imposes an additional investigation requirement that must be

conducted by an EPA-certified inspector or risk assessor (who is not an agent of the owner or a

contractor hired to remediate lead-paint hazards) to assess the presence of lead-based paint within

a unit using an “x-ray fluorescence analyzer.”  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(a-1).  This

investigation is required to be completed: (1) by August 9, 2025; (2) within a year of a child under

six years old coming to reside in the unit; or (3) as required by an order of DOHMH, whichever is

earliest.  Id.

63. For both of these investigations, owners are required to provide the results of the

investigation to the unit’s occupant in writing, including providing the occupant with any report

generated during the investigation, and the owner must also keep a copy of any such report for at

least ten years.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(f); see also 28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-04(c)(1) (the record

of the investigation shall “include the location of such inspection and the results of such inspection

for each surface”).

C. Turnover and Remediation/Abatement Requirements

64. Local Law One also imposes requirements on an owner of qualifying buildings to

conduct specified lead-based paint remediation and abatement work upon the earlier of: (i)

turnover of any unit; (ii) by July 1, 2027 for any unit where a child of applicable age resides as of

January 1, 2025; or (iii) within 3 years of the date a child of applicable age begins to reside in any

unit.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.8(a).

65. The requirement work includes: (1) remediating all lead-based paint hazards and

any underlying defects; (2) making all bare floors, windowsills, and window wells in the unit

smooth and cleanable; (3) providing for the removal or permanent covering of all lead-based paint

on all friction surfaces on all doors and door frames; and (4) providing for the removal or

permanent covering of all lead-based paint on all friction surfaces on all windows, or provide for

18

the installation of replacement window channels or slides on all lead-based painted friction

surfaces on all windows.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.8(a)(1)-(4).

66. After an owner has completed this work, a lead dust clearance test must be

performed by a certified third party (neither the owner nor the individual or company that

performed any repairs or construction to prepare the apartment for turnover).  NYC Admin. Code

§§ 27-2056.11(a)(3), 2056.11(b); see also 28 R.C.N.Y. §§ 11-06(b)(2)(iii), (3)(ii), (4), and (g)(3).

67. Owners must certify compliance with the requirements above in a notice provided

to a new occupant upon signing of their lease (including renewal leases) if any, or upon any

agreement to lease, or commencement of occupancy if there is no lease.  28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-05(d).

The owner must also provide the occupant with a pamphlet developed by the DOHMH about the

prevention of lead-based paint hazards.  28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-03(a)(1).

68. Any owner who fails to comply with the requirements to perform work at turnover

or prior to turnover in the case of a child of applicable age residing in a unit and subsequent

clearance testing is liable for a class C immediately hazardous violation.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-

2056.8(c).

V. State and Local Housing Quality Laws

69. State and local law impose numerous requirements on property owners to ensure

their buildings are free from conditions other than lead.  As relevant here and as discussed below,

these laws include Local Law 55, the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law, the New York State

Real Property Law, and the New York City Housing Maintenance Code.

A. NYC Asthma Free Housing Act (Local Law 55 of 2018)

70.  The NYC Asthma Free Housing Act (a/k/a Local Law 55) requires owners of

multiple dwellings with three or more dwelling units to keep their tenants’ apartments free of mold

and pests, including by fixing underlying conditions that lead to these problems.  Owners have

both an obligation to remediate any condition constituting an indoor allergen hazard under the law,

and are responsible for proactively preventing the “reasonably foreseeable occurrence of such

conditions.”  NYC Admin Code § 27-2017.1.  Local Law 55 thus imposes obligations to

investigate for the existence of such conditions, to ensure that asthma triggers are removed after a

tenant moves out and before a subsequent tenant moves in, and to use safe work-practices while

conducting that remediation.

71. Investigation and Remediation: Local Law 55 directs owners to conduct

investigations at least annually in all occupied units and in common areas for any conditions that

are reasonably foreseeable to cause an indoor allergen hazard (such as mice, cockroaches, rats and

mold) and to respond when an occupant makes a complaint or when HPD issues a notice of

violation for condition likely to cause an indoor allergen hazard.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-

2017.2(b).

72. Owners must remediate pest infestations and violations for pests using integrated

pest management practices to safely control pests and to fix conditions leading to pest problems.

NYC Admin. Code § 27-2017.8(a); see also 24 R.C.N.Y. §151.02.

73. Upon vacancy and prior to re-occupancy, an owner must remediate all visible mold

and pest infestations and underlying defects in a unit and by thoroughly cleaning and vacuuming

all carpeting and furniture (if provided by the owner).   NYC Admin. Code §27-2017.5(a).  The

owner must also certify in writing to the incoming occupant that the unit is in compliance with this

mandate.  NYC Admin. Code §27-2017.5(b).

74. Work Practices:  When remediating mold or mold hazards, owners must follow

work practices that include (1) covering any furniture or items that cannot be removed with plastic

sheeting; (2) minimizing dust and debris dispersion; (3) cleaning an area with soap or detergent

20

and water; (4) removing and discarding materials that cannot be properly cleaned; and (5) leaving

the work area dry and visibly free from mold, dust and debris.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2017.9.

Owners must certify that the required work practices were followed when certifying correction of

a violation.  Id. § 27-2017.9(c).

75. Notices:  All leases offered to prospective tenants must contain a notice advising

them of obligations of the owner and tenant pursuant to Local Law 55.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-

2017.2(c).  Owners must also provide prospective tenants with a DOHMH pamphlet outlining

information about indoor allergens for tenants and requirements imposed on owners to keep

dwelling units free of pests and mold.   Id.

B. The MDL, the RPL, and the HMC:  Maintenance, Services and Utilities

76. New York State Multiple Dwelling Law applies to residential buildings with three

or more dwelling units in cities, including New York City.  The MDL sets out a tenants’ right to

have their unit, including common areas, be kept in good repair by the owner.  MDL § 78.

77. New York State Real Property Law § 235-b provides that in every lease or rental

agreement for a residential dwelling there is an implied warranty of habitability.  RPL § 235-b.

Under this implied warranty, a landlord has a non-delegable duty to make sure that occupants are

not subject to conditions that are dangerous, hazardous, or detrimental to their life, health, or safety.

RPL § 235-b(1).

78. The statutory warranty of habitability is incorporated by operation of law into the

local NYC Housing Maintenance Code (NYC Admin. Code § 27-2001 et seq.).  The HMC applies

to all residential apartments in New York City and sets out minimum standards for owners’ duties

to repair and maintain safe and sanitary housing conditions, including for lead-based paint

abatement, the control of pests and other asthma allergen triggers (described above), the collection

of waste, and for the provision of heat and hot water.  Violations of the HMC are classified as “A”

21

(non-hazardous), “B” (hazardous) and “C” (immediately hazardous).  NYC Admin. Code § 27-

2115.  The penalties provided for in the HMC include the imposition of fines for false certification

of correction of violations.  Id. § 25-2115(a)(4).

VI. State General Business Law: Deceptive Business Practices

79. Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business or in the furnishing of

any service in New York state are unlawful.  GBL § 349(a).

80. The New York State Attorney General is authorized to bring actions to enjoin

persons or entities from engaging in deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of business.  GBL

§ 349(b).  The New York State Attorney General is also authorized to seek restitution of any money

or property obtained directly or indirectly by any such unlawful acts or practices, as well as civil

penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.  See GBL § 350-d.

81. A deceptive act or practice in the conduct of business and furnishing of a service

can include the misrepresentation that an apartment is habitable and free of health and safety

hazards when it is not, or the failure to make required certifications or disclosures to tenants under

federal and local lead paint disclosure rules and/or the false representation that qualified work has

been performed and code violations were corrected.

82. The State has timely served Defendants with a pre-litigation notice pursuant to

GBL § 349(c) and/or Defendants have waived notice.

VII. State Executive Law: Fraud or Illegality

83. New York Executive Law § 63(12) authorizes the New York State Attorney

General to commence an action for injunctive and other relief, including penalties related to any

underlying statute, against any person or business entity that has engaged in “repeated fraudulent

or illegal acts” or “persistent fraud or illegality” in “the carrying on, conducting or transaction of

business.”

22

84. “Illegal” conduct under Executive Law § 63(12) includes the violation of any

federal, state, or local law or regulation, including those related to lead-based paint and safe

housing.

VIII. Public Nuisance

85. A public nuisance exists where there is a substantial and unreasonable interference

with a right common to the general public. This includes circumstances where a landlord

significantly interferes with the public health, the public safety, the public comfort, or the public

convenience, by failing to provide safe and sanitary living conditions to thousands of residents.  It

includes conduct that is continuous and longstanding, involves repeated violations of law, and is

undertaken by a landlord who knows or should have known that the conduct significantly affects

the public health.

86. The United States has standing to sue to abate a public nuisance that impacts

significant federal interests.  Significant federal interests are affected by the conduct at issue in

this complaint, which affects interstate commerce, including but not limited to the following: the

United States’ interests in promoting decent and affordable housing; the United States’ interest in

preventing conduct or conditions proximate to federally subsidized units that exist in more than a

dozen of these buildings and may come to exist in others from impacting those units; and the

United States’ interest in avoiding additional costs caused by the public nuisance, including

increased costs to federal health care programs from the adverse impact of the conditions on the

health of individuals insured by federal health care programs such as Medicare or Medicaid.

87. The State of New York, by its Attorney General, has authority to bring an action

seeking to enjoin nuisance conditions which affect its residents.  The term “nuisance” as defined

by Multiple Dwelling Law:

23

. . . shall be held to embrace public nuisance as known at common law or in equity
jurisprudence.  Whatever is dangerous to human life or detrimental to health, and
. . . whatever renders the air…unwholesome, are also severally, in contemplation
of this law, nuisances.  All such nuisances are unlawful.

MDL § 309(1)(a).

88. The City of New York has adopted the same definition of nuisance in its Health

Code.  See NYC Admin. Code § 17-142.  Further, NYC Administrative Code § 7-701 et. seq.

(popularly known as the “Nuisance Abatement Law”) was enacted to prohibit the use of property

in “. . . flagrant violation of the building code . . . health laws . . . multiple dwelling law. . . all of

which interfere with the quality of life[,] . . .  public health, safety and welfare of the people of the

city [of New York] . . . .” Id. § 7-701.  The Nuisance Abatement Law mirrors the Health Code

definition of nuisance amongst the types of nuisances for which a permanent injunction may be

sought.  Id. § 7-703, 7-706(a), and 7-714.  Section 7-706(h) of the Nuisance Abatement Law

provides that a penalty may be awarded against a defendant who intentionally conducted,

maintained, or permitted a public nuisance.

89. Finally, a state-common-law public nuisance is an offense against the State when

the conduct leading to the nuisance condition amounts to a substantial interference with the

exercise of a common right of the public or endangers the health, safety or comfort of a

considerable number of people.

DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATIONS OF
LEAD PAINT SAFETY REGULATIONS

90. Defendants have systematically violated federal, state and local lead paint safety

rules.  Their conduct puts tenants—particularly children under six—and workers at increased risk

of lead poisoning.  As described below, see infra ¶¶ 132-135, since 2012, at least 130 children

living in Defendants’ buildings in New York City have suffered lead poisoning.

24

I. Defendants’ Violations of the Lead Disclosure Rule

91. Since at least 2012, Defendants have routinely violated the Lead Disclosure Rule.

92. Lilmor and the LLC Defendants have admitted that they systematically violated the

Lead Disclosure Rule from at least June 1, 2012, through November 15, 2020, including by:

• Failing to “disclose the presence of any known lead-based paint and/or lead-
based paint hazards in target housing . . . to purchasers or lessees of such
housing before selling or leasing the housing, as is required under 24 C.F.R.
§ 35.88(a)(2)”;

• Failing to “disclose ‘any additional information available concerning the known
lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, such as the basis for the
determination that lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards exist, the
location of the lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, and the
condition of the painted surfaces,’ to prospective purchasers or lessees of target
housing, as required under 24 C.F.R. § 35.88(a)(2)”; and

• Failing to “provide records and reports available to them pertaining to lead-
based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards to prospective purchasers and
lessees of target housing—including records and reports regarding common
areas and other residential dwellings in multifamily target housing, as is
required under 24 C.F.R. § 35.88(a)(4).”

93. In addition to these admitted violations, the Government’s investigation revealed

other failures in Defendants’ Lead Disclosure Rule practices.  For example, in 103 lease files

reviewed by the Government, addressing certain units through 2018, Defendants never provided

tenants with a lead disclosure form including a lead warning statement informing tenants about the

dangers of lead paint.  And in 64 of these 103 files, Defendants made no disclosures despite

knowing that the apartments contained lead-based paint, based on citations previously received for

violations of New York City’s Housing Maintenance Code.

94. Defendants’ systematic failure to warn their tenants about lead paint violated the

Lead Disclosure Rule and put their tenants, particularly pregnant tenants and young children, at

risk.  If tenants knew the peeling paint in their apartment contained lead, they could have declined

to rent the apartment entirely or, if they decided to rent anyway, they would have been better able

25

to protect themselves and their families.  Even if Defendants themselves did not know specifically

of the existence of lead paint or lead paint hazards, their providing the Lead Disclosure Form with

the required lead warning statement and providing the EPA’s pamphlet would have enabled tenants

to guard against the risk of harm, as Congress intended.

95. Unfortunately, these risks were not just theoretical.  For example, in April 2015,

the LLC Defendant that owned one of Defendants’ buildings received five violations from HPD

for lead-based paint hazards in a unit at that address.

96. In May 2015, Lilmor hired an abatement firm to address the specific areas that had

been identified by HPD.  The firm abated the violations by a mix of removal (which eliminates

lead-based paint from a surface) and enclosure (which leaves the lead-based paint in place).

Because that abatement process intentionally left lead in the unit, Lilmor had actual knowledge of

the presence of lead in the unit.

26

97. Nevertheless, when the LLC Defendant, through Lilmor, entered a new lease with

the tenants of the unit in February 2016, it did not (1) inform the tenants that Defendants knew that

their unit continued to contain lead paint; or (2) provide the tenants with available records

reflecting lead paint violations and the abatement that included leaving lead paint in place.  The

Lead Disclosure Rule required Defendants to provide their tenants with this information.

98. Sadly, ten months later, in December 2016, blood testing performed on the tenants’

one-year-old child showed elevated blood-lead levels.  Had the tenants been warned about lead in

the unit, as required by law, they could have taken steps to protect themselves or insisted that

Defendants’ eliminate existing hazards in the apartment.

99. Since 2012, Lieberman has been ultimately responsible for ensuring that residential

units managed by Lilmor comply with the Lead Disclosure Rule.  Throughout this period, he

maintained operational control over Lilmor, and the Lilmor employees responsible for leasing and

regulatory compliance reported up a chain of command that ended with Lieberman.  Although he

had the power to ensure Lilmor’s compliance with the Lead Disclosure Rule, he failed to do so

even after the Government began investigating his company.

100. In light of Defendants’ systematic non-compliance, they are likely to continue

violating the Lead Disclosure Rule in the absence of an injunction.

II. Lilmor and Lieberman’s Violations of the RRP Rule

101. In addition to their widespread non-compliance with the Lead Disclosure Rule,

Lilmor and Lieberman have violated the RRP Rule throughout their portfolio, both during routine

maintenance work conducted by Lilmor superintendents and in large-scale renovation projects

conducted by other entities under their control.

27

A. Lilmor’s Superintendents Conduct Maintenance Work in Violation of the RRP Rule.

102. Lilmor has never been certified as a renovation firm pursuant to the RRP Rule, nor

have its superintendents been trained and certified as certified renovators pursuant to that rule.

103. Despite lacking certifications and related training, Lilmor has routinely relied on

its superintendents to conduct paint-disturbing work covered by the requirements of the RRP Rule.

For example, Lilmor’s internal work order database reflects that, on July 20, 2016, the

superintendent of one of Defendants’ buildings conducted work described in the database as

“REPAIR PRIVATE HALLWAY AND ENTIRE APT BULGING WALL.”  As noted above, the

RRP Rule governs “modification or repair of painted surfaces or painted components (e.g.,

modification of painted doors . . .)” above de minimis levels.

104. In another example, the work order database reflects that the superintendent of

another building conducted work described as “SCRAPE OFF PEELING PAINT FROM BDRM

CEILING—DONE” on December 23, 2015.  Again, the RRP Rule governs “surface preparation

activity (such as sanding, scraping, or other such activities that may generate paint dust).”

105. In interviews, Lilmor tenants have confirmed that Lilmor’s superintendents

conducted the kind of work described above.  One tenant told investigators that “[t]he

superintendent is sent to make almost all repairs.”  Another tenant described a large recurring leak

in her bathroom ceiling for which the building’s superintendent would routinely come to cut out

portions of the ceiling  that were leaking and patch them with plywood.

106. Because Lilmor’s superintendents have not been trained or certified to conduct

work under the RRP Rule, between 2012 and the present they did not follow the RRP Rule’s

requirements: They did not distribute informational pamphlets to tenants; post warning signs;

exclude tenants from work areas; follow lead-safe work practices; or maintain records of

28

compliance.  Lilmor’s failure to take these basic, mandatory steps put its tenants, visitors, and

workers at risk of exposure to dust containing lead during maintenance projects in their units.

107. Although it is not always possible to trace the origin of lead exposure, Lilmor’s

documents reflect instances where its superintendents disturbed lead paint in a unit without

complying with the RRP Rule and shortly after a child within the unit suffered lead poisoning.

108. For example, in January of 2020, the superintendent of one building performed

substantial repairs within a tenant’s apartment, as reflected in the following work order:

Less than two months later, blood testing of a two-year old child living in that apartment showed

elevated blood lead levels.

109. Similarly, in June of 2012, the superintendent of another building conducted

significant work in an apartment within that building, including the repair of bathroom wall tiles

and of a hole in the kitchen ceiling, as reflected in the work order below:

110. In November of 2012, blood testing of a child living in that apartment showed

elevated blood lead levels the day before his second birthday.

111. The employees at Lilmor responsible for the hiring and training of superintendents,

as well as for decisions about what work should be conducted by superintendents and what work

should be outsourced to contractors, reported through a chain of command that ended with Morris

29

Lieberman.  At all times relevant to this complaint, Morris Lieberman had final decision-making

authority over hiring decisions, training decisions, and decisions regarding whether work would

be conducted by in-house employees or contractors, and could have but did not take action to cause

compliance.

B. Lilmor and Lieberman Violated the RRP Rule in Larger Renovation Projects.

112. When Lilmor needed to conduct renovation projects larger in scale than those that

it required its superintendents to conduct, it would often hire a purported independent contractor—

“Individual A”—to perform the renovations.

113. Individual A conducts renovation work through an LLC in which he is the only

employee, sometimes with the assistance of a limited number of independent contractors that he

employs.  Individual A’s firm is a “mom and pop shop,” as described by the Lilmor employee with

responsibility for facilitating apartment repairs and renovations.  Individual A’s LLC derives

substantially all (if not all) of its income from projects assigned to it by Lilmor.

114. Individual A conducts renovation projects in Lilmor housing under the direct

supervision and control of Lilmor employees.  When Lilmor tasks Individual A with a project, he

goes to the apartment, takes pictures of the anticipated worksite, and sends them to the Lilmor

employee responsible for managing repairs and renovations.  That Lilmor employee would then

instruct Individual A on how to perform the project.  Once completed, Individual A would send

photographs of the worksite to the Lilmor employee, who would approve the work and authorize

payment.

115. Lilmor also assumed authority over Individual A’s compliance with the RRP Rule.

When the RRP Rule’s certification requirement first came into effect in 2010, Lilmor scheduled

Individual A for individual renovator training and arranged for his LLC’s certification.  After

30

Individual A’s and his LLC’s certifications lapsed in 2015, Lilmor did not cause either to be

renewed until February 2021.

116. Despite the fact that Individual A’s LLC’s certification had lapsed, between 2015

and 2021, Lilmor continued to use Individual A to conduct renovation projects subject to the RRP

Rule.

117. For example, in December of 2019, Individual A repaired the condition pictured

below on a window within an apartment in 1311 Avenue K:

118. And as another example, in June of 2019, Individual A removed a large section of

crumbling ceiling from the bathroom of an apartment in 55 Winthrop, replaced the sheetrock, and

repainted it, as pictured below:

31

119. Individual A has admitted in communications with the Government that when he

conducted this kind of renovation work on behalf of Lilmor, he did not provide tenants with the

EPA pamphlet on lead safety that is required to be distributed under the RRP Rule, nor did he

maintain any records of compliance with other aspects of the RRP Rule.  Furthermore (and as

mentioned above), these projects were conducted by a firm and renovators who were not certified

to conduct work under the RRP Rule.  Upon information and belief, Individual A did not follow

the work practice requirements of the RRP Rule during these renovations, either.

120. Lilmor’s work order database reflects numerous examples of Individual A being

used by Lilmor to conduct comparable work in Lilmor apartments.

121. As with the work conducted by Lilmor’s superintendents, projects undertaken by

Individual A were sometimes followed closely in time by children testing positive for elevated

blood lead levels.

122. In January 2020, for example, Individual A conducted a renovation project in an

apartment that involved the repair of missing tiles within a bathroom and the replacement of a

damaged door, as reflected in the work order below:

In June 2020, blood testing of a child who was less than a year old showed elevated blood lead

levels in the same apartment.

32

123. In another apartment, Individual A conducted multiple renovation projects over the

course of late 2015 through mid-2016, including the removal of mold from painted surfaces and

the repair of a hallway ceiling.

In November 2016, blood testing of an eight-year-old child who had been living in the apartment

during those prior renovation projects showed elevated blood lead levels.

124. The Lilmor employees responsible for managing the work conducted by Individual

A reported through a chain of command that ended with Morris Lieberman.  At all times relevant

to the complaint, Lieberman had authority to ensure that Individual A conducted work in

compliance with the RRP Rule (or to stop assigning work to Individual A altogether), but he failed

to exercise that authority.

III. Defendants’ Violations of State and Local Lead-Based Paint Law

125. For years after its passage, Defendants failed to comply even nominally with its

obligations under Local Law One, with the result that HPD has placed over 1,500 violations across

Defendants’ buildings from 2012 to date for lead paint hazards alone.

A. Defendants’ Failure to Certify Turnover Lead Paint Abatement and Distribute the
DOHMH Pamphlet on Lead Based Paint Hazards

126. Like their failure to comply with the Lead Disclosure Rule, until at least 2020,

Defendants ignored their obligation to certify in initial and renewal leases to its rent-stabilized

tenants that work to remediate lead-based paint hazards had been done at the vacancy or turnover

of their units in compliance with NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.8 and 28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-05(d).

33

Defendants’ practice, as demonstrated by the sample below, was simply to leave that certification

(and their related certification that they had distributed the relevant DOHMH pamphlet)

completely blank:

127. For example, in January 2018, a tenant who moved into an apartment signed a lease

and notified Defendants that a child under six would be residing in the apartment.  As shown above,

Defendants failed to certify that lead paint abatement and remediation work was done before the

family moved in.  They also failed to certify that the DOHMH pamphlet, which would have given

the tenant basic information about how to identify and prevent lead based paint hazards, was

provided.

128. The premises of that apartment were built in 1922 and therefore are presumed under

the law to contain lead based paint.  In fact, Defendants were aware that tests had come back

positive for lead based paint in multiple other units at that building before entering into a new lease

with the tenants.  Defendants failed to properly inform the tenant at lease signing of the hazards of

34

lead based paint when they were aware that lead-based paint had been found at the premises and

that a child under six years old would be moving in.

B. Defendants’ Failure to Conduct Investigations

129. For every child under six years old that came to reside in an apartment in

Defendants’ portfolio, Defendants were obligated within one year to “cause an investigation to be

made for peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deteriorated subsurfaces, friction surfaces and impact

surfaces” to determine any lead-based paint hazards needing remediation or abatement pursuant

to its obligation under Local Law One.  See NYC Admin Code § 27-2056.4(a).  From at least 2015

to at least 2019, Defendants failed to conduct these required investigations.

130. In fact, Defendants made no effort to investigate the residence of the child under

six who came to reside in the same apartment discussed in Paragraphs 126 and 127, above.

131. Nor did Defendants comply with their further obligation to ascertain whether the

child who lived in that apartment in 2018 continued to live there into 2019, even after the February

15, 2019, deadline to do so had passed.  This violation of Local Law One’s obligations had serious

consequences.  Nine months later, on October 2, 2019, HPD issued three violations for positive

lead paint in that apartment as shown below:

35

132. Between 2016 and 2021 there were multiple HPD violations placed for positive

lead paint hazards across no less than 17 apartments in that building alone.  Approximately 15

children residing in that building have been tested and found to have elevated blood-lead since

2012.

IV. At Least 130 Children Have Suffered Lead Poisoning in These Buildings

133. Defendants’ widespread violation of the Lead Disclosure Rule, the RRP Rule, and

the NYC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act puts their tenants at risk, exposing tenants,

their visitors, and workers to lead dust and depriving tenants of information that would help them

protect themselves and their children.

134. Since 2012, blood tests performed on at least 130 children living in apartments

controlled by Lieberman, Lilmor and the relevant LLC Defendants, and owned by Lieberman

and/or the LLC Defendant, have shown elevated blood lead levels and had those results reported

to DOHMH.  At least 14 of those test results occurred between January 1, 2022, and May 1, 2024,

the latest information available to the Government.

135. These numbers likely understate the number of poisoned children in Lilmor’s

buildings.  Many children never receive tests for lead poisoning, even in New York where health

care providers are required to test children for lead at one and two years of age.  See N.Y. Public

Health Law § 67-1.2.  DOHMH has recently estimated that in New York City, 20% of three-year-

old children had never been tested, and half had not been tested at ages one and two, as required.

Lower-income individuals who have reduced access to medical care may have particular

challenges in obtaining testing on this schedule.

136. The Government reviewed the DOHMH files for several instances in which

DOHMH investigated apartments following the lead-poisoning of a child living in them, including

by visually assessing the apartments for paint that was not intact or was subject to friction and

36

taking paint samples for laboratory analysis for lead.  In every case, DOHMH inspectors identified

lead hazards in the apartment.

DEFENDANTS SUBJECT THEIR TENANTS TO UNSAFE AND UNSANITARY
CONDITIONS; VIOLATE STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING LAW; AND MAINTAIN A

PUBLIC NUISANCE

137. Defendants have maintained unsafe and unsanitary conditions across the buildings

they control, not just violating federal, state and local lead paint safety regulations, but also

subjecting tenants to incessant leaks; pervasive mold; chronic heat outages; and infestations of

roaches, mice, and rats, as well as other serious threats to their health and safety.  From 2012 to

date, Defendants were cited for 15,680 hazardous or “B” violations and over 7,770 immediately

hazardous or “C” violations of the NYC Housing Maintenance Code by HPD.

138. In January of 2024, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office

of the Inspector General (“HUD-OIG”) agents conducted inspections of a dozen units within the

Lilmor portfolio and found numerous health and safety issues.

139. For example, one tenant directed HUD-OIG to multiple issues in his apartment,

including a water leak in his living room and mold growing over the bathroom window, pictured

below:

37

The tenant informed HUD-OIG that he had sent pictures of the mold to Lilmor six months earlier,

but that it had yet to fix the problem.

140. As another example, a tenant informed HUD-OIG agents that his apartment has

faced continuous mold problems that Lilmor had once painted over, but that had recurred through

the paint.  He also reported a leak from the upstairs unit and an extreme problem with mice,

providing these pictures to substantiate his experience:

141. The Government’s interviews with tenants confirmed that they routinely

complained of the conditions in their apartments to Lilmor, but their complaints were often met

without response or were remediated through temporary fixes that only exacerbated the unsafe and

unsanitary living conditions in their apartments.

142. For example, one tenant has lived in a Lilmor apartment for ten years with a

crumbling ceiling in his closet caused by a long-existent leak.  His superintendent would

occasionally come to plaster the damaged ceiling, but without addressing the root cause of the

problem.  One night in 2020, his ceiling collapsed, sending a rush of water through the apartment.

At that point, Lilmor finally sent a plumber to address the leak but, when the tenant spoke to

Government investigators one month later, nothing had been done to fix the collapsed ceiling.  One

38

of the tenants had to clean the fallen plaster from a closet floor themselves.  Lilmor knew from

prior HPD violations that the paint in that closet was lead-based paint.

143. Tenants with young children particularly susceptible to mold and lead paint fare no

better under Lilmor’s management.  Tenants in one building who were interviewed by the

Government grew concerned about peeling paint on their apartment door after the birth of their

son and called both Lilmor and HPD.  Although Lilmor’s employees told the tenants not to worry

about it, HPD inspectors identified peeling lead paint in several areas in the apartment.  The

contractors hired by Lilmor to remediate the lead paint violations were unprofessional, according

to the tenants’ account, and one of the tenants himself went out to purchase appropriate plastic

sheeting to protect the work areas after researching the proper way to remediate lead-based paint.

These tenants, too, had a ceiling collapse in one of their closets as water crashed through from a

leaking pipe.

144. Tenant complaints to Lilmor’s central office email account help highlight the full

extent of Lilmor’s failures to ensure safe and sanitary conditions in tenants’ apartments.  In April

2021, a tenant sent the following picture of peeling paint on a window to Lilmor’s email inbox:

145. She explained that she had “emailed before” about this issue and that although the

superintendent “looked at it,” he “never came back to fix it [for] more than a month now!”

146. The tenant explained her sentiment about her treatment in no uncertain terms:  “It’s

very frustrating, I’m 6 months pregnant and I’ve been trying to get this fix before I go into labor.

I don’t know if the paint that’s falling all on my curtains and floors have lead, I need it fixed

ASAP! . . . When I email I get no response of what’s going to happen . . . I shouldn’t have to work

months for repairs to be done.”

147. Lilmor’s inbox is replete with similar complaints of unresponsive superintendents

and delayed repairs.  For example, on May 6, 2020 at 3:03 P.M., a tenant emailed Lilmor to say

“[i]t looks like the ceiling may collapse” due to a leak in the bathroom ceiling.  At 7:43 P.M., the

tenant followed up, saying “[t]he ceiling has collapsed,” but that “[t]he super has told us that a

plumber will be coming tomorrow morning to fix it.”

148. But on June 9, 2020, the same tenant sent Lilmor the following picture:

40

149. The tenant’s message to Lilmor was simple: “It has been over a month and no repair

has been done. We have contacted the Super and nothing has been done. My family and I had to

duck tape a plastic bag to stop debris from falling on our heads while using the bathroom. This is

unacceptable and outrageous.”

150. Some of the conditions faced by tenants shock the conscience.  In October of 2020,

a tenant emailed Lilmor to request repairs to his apartment.  Lilmor scheduled a repair for

December of 2020, but when the repair workers came, they only addressed some of the apartment’s

issues, which the tenant informed Lilmor on January 1, 2021.

151. In March, the tenant emailed Lilmor back with the subject line “URGENT!”  That

email noted that “[t]he bedroom where [the tenant’s] 2 year-old son” sleeps “is also covered in

mold on the ceiling that has gotten worst over time.”  The mold in question is pictured below:

152. The tenants’ email—five months after he first contacted his landlord—ended with

the following plea: “This is unfair and these repairs need to be addressed IMMEDIATELY before

they get worse.”

41

153. HUD-OIG inspections, tenant interviews, and Lilmor’s own work order database

and email inbox establish that stories like those of the tenants discussed above are not isolated

incidents within Lilmor’s portfolio—hundreds of tenants have been subjected to unsafe and

unsanitary conditions, with no or inadequate responses from Lilmor.

154. Between 2019 and the present, HPD issued thousands of violations for unsafe and

unsanitary conditions within the 56 buildings that were owned or controlled by Defendants during

this period.  Over 2,300 violations were issued related to rat, mice, and roach infestations.  Over

1,400 were issued related to mold and over 1,400 violations were issued for water leaks.  Over 900

were for lead-paint violations under City law.  And over 80 were issued where tenants had no heat.

Defendants’ violation rate was so high during this period that Lieberman’s agent was declared

New York City’s “Worst Landlord” in 2019 and 2020 by New York City’s Public Advocate,

climbing from ninth worst in 2018.

155.   Conditions were especially dire in a handful of Lilmor and Lieberman’s worst

maintained buildings.  The buildings located at 192 Nagle Avenue, 200 Nagle Avenue, 1311

Avenue K, 1435 Carroll Street, 575 Herkimer Street, and 1616 President Street each averaged over

eight violations per unit between 2016 and 2021.

156. Because the hazardous and immediately hazardous violation counts for mold and

water leaks were so high in several buildings, those buildings were selected by HPD for mandatory

participation in the “Underlying Conditions” program.  This program identifies approximately fifty

to one hundred of the worst buildings citywide for these violation types in the year before selection

that remain uncorrected.  In October 2019, Defendants’ buildings occupied six of those spots.6

6 The six buildings that entered the Underlying Conditions program in October 2019 were 200
Nagle Avenue, 3402 Avenue I, 776 Crown Street, 250 East 29th Street, 575 Herkimer Street, and
271 Parkside Avenue.

42

157. The persistently poor condition of apartments in Lilmor’s portfolio results from

Defendants’ complete failure to conduct any kind of preventive maintenance or even to proactively

identify problems when they arise.  When interviewed by the Government in 2021, the Lilmor

employee responsible for coordinating apartment repairs stated that “you can be proactive all you

want, [but HPD is] going to issue violations.”  She continued: “We’re not looking for

issues . . . We’re not going to check unless we have reason to check.”

158. Defendant Morris Lieberman, who bears ultimate responsibility for the staffing and

funding decisions that give rise to the unsafe and unsanitary conditions and who directly supervises

the Lilmor personnel responsible for managing unit-by-unit repairs, is unmoved by the suffering

of his tenants, as callously reflected in the email correspondence regarding 30 insufficient heat

complaints from the winter of 2020, set forth below:

159. Health and safety violations like leaks and mold persisted in Defendants portfolio

in part because Defendants failed abysmally to address these indoor allergen triggers in any

comprehensive manner, as required by Local Law 55.  Defendants took none of the legally required

steps to (i) annually inspect all apartments for indoor allergen hazards, including for pests and

mold and keep records of those inspections; (ii) properly remediate indoor allergen hazards using

safe work practices as defined by the law; (iii) clean units at vacancy to ensure that they are free

of pests and mold and using a HEPA vacuum where indicated; (iv) timely establish Integrated Pest

43

Management plans, as required by law, in many buildings in the portfolio; or (v) provide a copy

of the DOHMH Fact Sheet “What Tenants Should Know About Indoor Allergens” with all tenants’

initial and renewal leases.

160. Additionally, the overall numbers of Housing Maintenance Code violations in

Defendants’ buildings were high enough to land the buildings in another of HPD’s mandatory

oversight programs, the Alternative Enforcement Program (“AEP”).  Based on their high violation

count, HPD selects approximately 200 buildings citywide on January 31st of each year to

participate.  The selected buildings undergo frequent inspections to monitor correction of

violations and if the owner fails to act, HPD will make the repairs and bill the owner.  Between

2019 and 2022, ten of Defendants’ buildings were required to participate in the AEP program.7

DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS
PRACTICES

161. In addition to the repeated and persistent violations of laws governing lead-based

paint and housing conditions, Defendants have engaged in deceptive and fraudulent business

practices in violation of NYS GBL § 349 by (1) their complete failure to establish proper policies

and practices for addressing lead-based paint hazards, including their use of uncertified workers

to perform renovations of actual or presumed lead paint; (2) their persistent failure to disclose

known lead paint hazards to new and existing tenants; (3) their failure to sign required

certifications with initial and renewal leases that lead paint inspection and remediation work has

been properly done in the units they lease; and (4) their chronic misrepresentation of the

habitability of the apartments they lease to the public.

7 192 Nagle Avenue, 200 Nagle Avenue, 250 East 29th Street, 251 East 29th Street, 1439 Ocean
Avenue, 3402 Avenue I, 776 Crown Street, 575 Herkimer Street, 271 Parkside Avenue, and 1616
President Street.

44

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT ONE: LEAD DISCLOSURE RULE
(ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES)

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

162. The United States repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 161.

163. The United States brings this count on behalf of EPA and HUD.

164. Morris Lieberman is a lessor within the meaning of the Lead Disclosure Rule, either

directly or through his control of alter egos and agents.  Each of the LLC Defendants is also a

lessor within the meaning of the Lead Disclosure Rule.

165. Lilmor is an agent of a lessor within the meaning of the Lead Disclosure Rule.

166. Morris Lieberman is a corporate officer of Lilmor and most of the LLC Defendants.

He had the authority to cause, and was responsible for causing, those entities to comply with the

Lead Disclosure Rule.

167. Between 2012 and the present, Defendants have systematically violated the Lead

Disclosure Rule.  They will continue to violate the Lead Disclosure Rule absent injunctive relief.

168. These violations of the Lead Disclosure Rule threaten irreparable harm to the health

and safety of children and others living in Lilmor’s buildings and frequent visitors to these

buildings.

169. Violation of the Lead Disclosure Rule is a “prohibited act” under and a violation of

TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2689, as well as a violation of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard

Reduction Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, Title X (“Title X”), 42 U.S.C. § 4852d.

170. Section 17(a) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2616(a), provides federal district courts with

jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Section 409 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2689, and Title X

authorizes the Secretary of HUD to seek an injunction of violations of the Lead Disclosure Rule,

42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(2).

45

171. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their violations of the Lead

Disclosure Rule, TSCA, and Title X, which unjust profits fund further violations by Defendants.

172. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2616(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(2), the Court should

issue an order (i) enjoining Defendants to comply with the Lead Disclosure Rule going forward;

(ii) directing Defendants to provide remedial disclosures to tenants and former tenants who have

not previously received proper disclosure, (iii) directing Defendants to take specified steps to

mitigate harm to tenants or others from prior violations, and (iv) requiring Defendants to disgorge

unjust profits that they have received in connection with their violations of the Lead Disclosure

Rule, to the extent authorized by law.  The Court should award other appropriate equitable relief,

including appointment of a special master, monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or

appropriate to ensure compliance.

COUNT TWO: RRP RULE
(ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES)

 (AGAINST MORRIS LIEBERMAN AND LILMOR)

173. The United States repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 172.

174. The United States brings this count on behalf of EPA.

175. Lilmor is a “firm” “performing renovations” “for compensation” in “target

housing” within the meaning of the RRP Rule.

176. Lieberman, who directs and oversees this work in violation of the RRP Rule, is a

“firm” “performing renovations” “for compensation” in “target housing” within the meaning of

the RRP Rule through his control of Lilmor with respect to compliance with the RRP Rule.  He is

also a responsible corporate officer of Lilmor and its alter egos.

177. Lieberman had the authority to cause, and was responsible for causing, Lilmor and

its agents and alter egos to comply with the RRP Rule.

46

178. Between 2012 and the present, Lieberman and Lilmor have systematically violated

the RRP Rule.

179. Lieberman and Lilmor will continue to violate the RRP Rule absent injunctive

relief.

180. These ongoing violations of the RRP Rule threaten irreparable harm to the health

and safety of children, others living in Lilmor’s buildings, visitors to these buildings, and workers

in these buildings.

181. Lieberman and Lilmor have obtained unjust profits from their violations of the RRP

Rule, which profits fund further violations by Defendants.

182. Violation of the RRP Rule is a “prohibited act” under and violation of TSCA, 15

U.S.C. § 2689.

183. Section 17(a) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2616(a), provides federal district courts with

jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Section 409 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2689.

184. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2616(a), the Court should issue an order (i) enjoining

Lieberman and Lilmor to comply with the RRP Rule going forward; (ii) ordering them to take

specified steps to mitigate harm to tenants or others from prior violations; and (iii) requiring them

to disgorge unjust profits that they have received in connection with their violations of the RRP

Rule, to the extent authorized by law.  The Court should award other appropriate equitable relief,

including appointment of a special master, monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or

appropriate to ensure compliance.

COUNT THREE: REPEATED AND PERSISTENT VIOLATION OF
 STATE/LOCAL LEAD-BASED PAINT LAW UNDER EXECUTIVE LAW § 63(12)

(ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK)
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

185. The State repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 to 184.

47

186. Defendants are persons engaged in carrying on, conducting, or transaction of

business for purposes of Executive Law § 63(12).

187. Defendants are “owners” of the residential buildings and apartments they manage

and/or own because they are either an “agent” and/or a “corporation” that is “directly or indirectly

in control” of those buildings and apartments. See NYC Admin. Code § 27-2004(45).

188. Defendants repeatedly and persistently violated multiple provisions of the NYC

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (Local Law One of 2004) NYC Admin. Code § 27-

2017 et seq. by failing to:

• Annually investigate whether a child under six years resides in an apartment where the
landlord was unable make the determination through annual inquiry.

• Annually investigate for peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deteriorated sub surfaces,
friction surfaces, and impact surfaces in multi-family buildings where a child under six
years lives including in apartments for which Defendants had actual notice that a child
under six resided in the apartment;

• Notify tenants in writing of the results of those investigations.

• Safely and expeditiously remediate and abate all lead-based paint hazards and underlying
defects using proper work methods.

• Take remedial measures to address lead-based paint hazards on the turnover of tenants in

a building constructed prior to 1960.

189. Defendants, who participated in the conduct and had knowledge of the facts and

events herein, have persistently violated the NYC Childhood Lead Paint Poisoning Act

constituting repeated illegality under Executive Law § 63(12).  They will continue to violate Local

Law One absent injunctive relief.  These ongoing violations  caused and threaten harm to the health

and safety of children and others residing in Defendants’ buildings and frequent visitors to the

buildings.

48

190. Defendants are liable, pursuant to the New York Attorney General’s Executive Law

§ 63(12) authority, for injunctive relief, for civil penalties for violations related to lead paint

conditions and recordkeeping pursuant to NYC Admin Code § 27-2115(a), as well as for an

additional civil penalty of up to $1,500.00 for each violation of NYC Admin Code § 27-2056.4

and § 27-2056.8.

191. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their violations of Local Law One

and the Attorney General seeks  disgorgement of the monies Defendants received in connection

with their violations of Local Law One.  The Court should award other appropriate equitable relief,

including appointment of a special master, monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or

appropriate to ensure compliance.

COUNT FOUR: VIOLATIONS OF STATE/LOCAL HOUSING LAW UNDER
EXECUTIVE LAW § 63(12)

(ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK)
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

192. The State repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 191.

193. Defendants are persons engaged in the carrying on, conducting, or transaction of

business for purposes of Executive Law § 63(12).

194. Defendants are “owners” of the residential buildings and apartments they manage

and/or own because they are either an “agent” and/or a “corporation” that is “directly or indirectly

in control” of those buildings and apartments.  See NYC Admin. Code § 27-2004(45).

195. Defendants repeatedly and persistently violated  the Warranty of Habitability of the

apartments they leased which is guaranteed by NYS RPL § 235-b and for which the obligation to

repair is set out in NYS MDL §78.  Defendants also repeatedly and persistently violated housing

standards set out in the NYC HMC (Admin. Code of the City of NY, tit. 27, ch. 2, subch. 2, § 27-

2001 et seq. and including but not limited to Admin. Code of the City of NY, tit. 27, ch. 2, subch.

49

2, Art. 4 Control of Pests and Other Asthma Triggers, § 27-2017-2019).  These violations

constitute repeated illegality under Executive Law § 63(12).

196. Defendants have violated and continue to violate the state and local housing law

and code.  They will continue to violate these laws absent injunctive relief.

197. These ongoing violations of the state and local housing law and code have caused

and threaten harm to the health and safety of children and others residing in Lilmor’s buildings

and frequent visitors to these buildings.

198. Defendants are liable for injunctive relief of total remediation and repair of all open

violations of record and substandard conditions as well as for remediation of any indoor allergen

triggers and compliance with inspection and notice requirements of the Asthma Free Housing Act.

199. Defendants are liable for restitution to the former and current tenants and occupants

of the dwellings they own and manage under Executive Law § 63(12).

200. Defendants are liable for damages pursuant to their breach of the Warranty of

Habitability

201. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their violations of the state and local

housing laws and codes, which unjust profits fund further violations by Defendants.

202. The Attorney General  seeks disgorgement of the monies Defendants received in

connection with their violations of state and local housing law and code as equitable relief..

203. Defendants are also liable for civil penalties that accrued for HPD violation

issuance as well as daily penalties accruing for both open and closed HPD violations.

204. The Court should award other appropriate equitable relief, including appointment

of a special master, monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or appropriate to ensure

compliance.

50

COUNT FIVE: VIOLATION OF
NYS GENERAL BUSINESS LAW
(ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK)
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

205. The State repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 204.

206. GBL § 349(a) prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any

business, trade or commerce.”  Defendants’ failure to certify compliance with the turnover

requirements of the NYC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act when entering into hundreds,

if not thousands of lease and renewal lease agreements with their tenants was a fraudulent and

deceptive business practice which would mislead a reasonable tenant into believing that

Defendants either complied with the turnover requirements of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act

or that lead-based paint hazards were not present.  These false certifications  violate GBL § 349(a).

Additionally, Defendants’ false representations that hundreds of apartments or more in their

portfolio are habitable, when they are not, constitutes a deceptive business practice.

207. Defendants have violated General Business Law § 349(a) by their actions and

omissions and will continue to violate the General Business Law absent injunctive relief.

208. These deceptive business practices have caused and threaten  harm to the health

and safety of children and others residing in Defendants’ buildings.

209. Defendants are liable for restitution to the former and current tenants and occupants

of the dwellings they own and manage for their violations of GBL § 349(a).

210. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their violations of the General

Business Law § 349(a), which unjust profits fund further violations by Defendants.

211. The Attorney General seeks disgorgement of the monies Defendants received in

connection with their violations of GBL § 349(a).

51

212. Defendants are also liable for civil penalties, pursuant to GBL §§ 349, 350-(d), of

up to $5,000 per violation or $10,000.00 pursuant to GBL § 349-c(2) for fraudulent conduct

perpetrated against one of more elderly persons.

213. The Court should award other appropriate equitable relief, including appointment

of a special master, monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or appropriate to ensure

compliance.

COUNT SIX: PUBLIC NUISANCE
(ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES)

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

214. The United States repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 213.

215. Defendants, directly and through agents, have and continue to substantially and

unreasonably interfere with the public health, the public safety, the public comfort, and the public

convenience including, in particular, the health and welfare of thousands of past, present, and

future tenants of Defendants’ buildings.

216. This interference is continuous and longstanding and involves repeated violations

of federal, state, and local law.

217. Defendants knew or should have known that the conduct at issue significantly

affects the public health.

218. Defendants’ conduct, which affects interstate commerce and implicates significant

federal interests, including but not limited to the United States’ interests in promoting decent and

affordable housing; the United States’ interest in preventing conduct or conditions proximate to

federally subsidized units from impacting conditions in those units; and the United States’ interest

in avoiding additional costs caused by the public nuisance, including increased costs to federal

52

health care programs from the adverse impact of the conditions on the health of individuals insured

by federal health care programs.

219. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their maintenance of the public

nuisance, which fund further violations by Defendants.

220. Pursuant to the common law of nuisance, the Court should issue an order

(i) enjoining Defendants to correct living conditions in the buildings that constitute a public

nuisance; (ii) directing Defendants to mitigate prior injuries resulting from the public nuisance;

and (iii) directing Defendants to disgorge their unjust profits, to the extent authorized by law.  The

Court should award other appropriate equitable relief, including appointment of a special master,

monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance.

COUNT SEVEN: PUBLIC NUISANCE
(ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK)
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

221. The State repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 220.

222. Defendants’ intentional conduct in maintaining, or permitting the existence of

conditions conducive to lead poisoning, mold and pest infestation and other conditions hazardous

to safety and health around Defendants’ properties is a public nuisance under state and local law.

NY CLS Mult D §309 (1)(a); NYC Admin. Code § 17-142.

223. The People of the State of New York, the counties in which the buildings are

located, and the City of New York have a common right to be free from the detrimental effects of

lead in, on and around Defendants’ residential rental properties.  By allowing these conditions to

proliferate across its 56 multi-family rental properties in New York City over a period of more

than ten years, Defendants have created and contributed to a public nuisance on a community-wide

scale.

53

224. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, conditions conducive to

lead poisoning, mold and pest infestations also leading to the exacerbation of indoor allergen

conditions, as well as other conditions that are dangerous to health and safety are present in, on

and around Defendants’ properties and over 2,500 units of housing.

225. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, the City of New York and

State of New York have incurred and will continue to incur substantial expenses from the presence

of conditions conducive to lead poisoning and asthma in, on and around Defendants’ properties,

including but not limited to costs of monitoring for and treating children suffering from lead

poisoning and asthma; addressing the special educational needs of children with lead poisoning

and enforcing the law.

226. Defendants have violated and continue to violate the Nuisance Abatement Law and

have created and maintained a common law nuisance.  They will continue to violate the law and

maintain a nuisance absent injunctive relief.

227. Defendants ongoing public nuisance has caused and threatened  harm to the health

and safety of children and others residing in Defendants’ buildings, to frequent visitors to these

buildings and to the surrounding community.

228. The Attorney General is authorized under Executive Law § 63(12) and pursuant to

NYC Admin Code § 7-706(a) and § 7-714 and the Attorney General’s parens patriae power, to

bring an action to enjoin Defendants’ public nuisance.  Defendants are also liable pursuant to

Section 7-706(h) of the Nuisance Abatement Law for a civil penalty in an amount up to one

thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day that the nuisance occurred.

229. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their maintenance of the public

nuisance, which fund further violations by Defendants.

54

230. The Attorney General is seeking disgorgement of the monies Defendants received

in connection with their violations of the public nuisance laws.

231. The Court should enjoin Defendants’ nuisance conduct, award other appropriate

equitable relief, including appointment of a special master, monitor, receiver, or temporary

receiver pursuant to NYC Admin Code  §7-713, to the extent necessary or appropriate to ensure

compliance.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, on Counts One, Two, and Six, the United States respectfully requests that
the Court:

(i) Enjoin Defendants to comply with the Lead Disclosure Rule, make remedial
disclosures, mitigate the effect of past violations, and disgorge unjust profits
resulting from such violations, to the extent authorized by law;

(ii) Enjoin Lilmor and Lieberman to comply with the RRP Rule, mitigate the
effect of past violations, and disgorge unjust profits resulting from such
violations, to the extent authorized by law;

(iii) Enjoin Defendants to correct living conditions in the buildings that
constitute a public nuisance, mitigate prior injuries resulting from the public
nuisance, and disgorge unjust profits, to the extent authorized by law;

(iv) Award other appropriate equitable relief, including appointment of a special

master, monitor, or receiver to the extent necessary or appropriate to ensure
compliance; and

(v) Order such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

55

 And WHEREFORE, on Counts Three, Four, Five, and Seven, the People of the State of
New York respectfully request that the Court:

(i) Order Defendants to inspect, within 30 days of the judgment, through a
qualified third party inspector, each dwelling unit and common areas of
each residence they now own or control or in the future own or manage in
New York for lead paint hazards and conditions conducive to lead
poisoning.  Further direct Defendants to remedy all such conditions in
compliance with Local Law One and all other local, state and federal laws
within 30 days of such inspection or sooner as required by law;

(ii) Order Defendants to comply with Local Law One requirements for
certification of lead paint turnover work and annual inquiry and
investigation of children under 6 years residing in dwelling units under their
ownership and control, and retain records of the result of their
investigations;

(iii) Order Defendants to inspect for and correct, within 30 days of the judgment

or sooner as required by law, each dwelling unit and common areas of each
residence they now own or control or in the future own or manage in New
York for conditions, including but not limited to indoor allergen conditions,
that constitute violations of the NYC HMC and/or constitute a public
nuisance;

(iv) Order Defendants to follow the direction of a special master, monitor, or

receiver to be appointed by the Court at Defendants’ expense and file
compliance reports to that monitor and the Plaintiffs;

(v) Permanently enjoin Defendants from further illegal acts relating to the

claims enumerated in the complaint herein;

(vi) Order disgorgement of all profits Defendants have realized from their
repeated and persistent violations of law and fraud in carrying out their
residential property leasing and management business;

(vii) Order Defendants to pay restitution to current and former tenants and

occupants for their repeated and persistent violations of law and fraud in
carrying out their residential property leasing and management business;

(viii) Award civil penalties, in an amount to be determined at trial, for Defendants

violations of the NYC Housing Maintenance Code and the NY General
Business Law;

56

(ix) Award damages for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs;

(x) Award Plaintiffs costs and disbursements

(xi) Order Defendants to pay all additional allowances authorized by CPLR
§ 8803.

(xii) Retain jurisdiction over this matter until Defendants have fully complied

with their obligations to inspect and remedy all existing conditions that
threaten health and safety at the buildings they own or manage;

(xiii) Award other appropriate equitable relief,  to the extent necessary or
appropriate to ensure compliance; and

(xiv) Order such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

57

Dated: December 13, 2024
New York, New York    DAMIAN WILLIAMS

United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Attorney for the United States
(As to Counts One, Two, and Six)

ZACHARY BANNON
JACOB LILLYWHITE
Assistant United States Attorneys
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, New York 10007
(212) 637-2728/2639
[email protected]
[email protected]

OF COUNSEL:

Jeannie Yu
Assistant Regional Counsel
Naomi Shapiro
Associate Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II

Lee Ann Richardson
Acting Assistant General Counsel
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development

Exhibit A

Building Previously Managed
by Lilmor and/or Controlled

by Lieberman

Building Currently
Managed by Lilmor and/or
Controlled by Lieberman

LLC Defendant Associated
with Building

192-198 Nagle Avenue, New
York, NY 10034

200-208 Nagle Avenue, New
York, NY 10034

776 Crown Street, Brooklyn, NY
11213

200 East 19th Street, Brooklyn,
NY 11226

271 Parkside Avenue, Brooklyn,
NY 1122

1616 President Street, Brooklyn,
NY 11213

575 Herkimer Street, Brooklyn,
NY 11213

354 East 21st Street, Brooklyn,
NY 11226  354 E 21th Street Realty

Corp.
2077 East 12th Street, Brooklyn,

NY  11229  P Bigg Realty LLC

 45 Hawthorne Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11225 45-55 Realty LLC

 55 Winthrop Street, Brooklyn,
NY 11225 55 Winthrop St LLC

 130 Clarkson Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11226 130 Clarkson Realty LLC

 250 East 29th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11226 250-251 E 29 Realty LLC

 251 East 29th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11226 251 E 29 St LLC

 1590 West 8th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11204 1590 W 8 St LLC

 105 Avenue P, Brooklyn, NY
11204 105 Ave P Realty LLC

 888 Montgomery Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11213 888 Realty LLC

 100 Linden Blvd, Brooklyn,
NY 11226 100 Linden Realty LLC

131 Lincoln Road, Brooklyn,

NY 11225 131 Realty LLC

60

Building Previously Managed
by Lilmor and/or Controlled

by Lieberman

Building Currently
Managed by Lilmor and/or
Controlled by Lieberman

LLC Defendant Associated
with Building

1629 West 10th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11223 C & Z Realty LLC

2003 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY

11210 2003 Realty LLC

1429 Carroll Street, Brooklyn,

NY 11213 1429 Carroll Street LLC

59 Logan Street, Brooklyn,

NY 11208 59 Logan St LLC

1269 East 18th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11230 1269 E 18 Street Realty LLC

334 Eastern Parkway,
Brooklyn, NY 11225 334 Eastern Pkwy Realty LLC

840 East 17th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11230 840 Realty LLC

1909 Quentin Road,
Brooklyn, NY 11229 1909 Realty LLC

333 Neptune Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11235 333 Realty LLC

1690 President Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11213 1690 President Street LLC

645 Ocean Parkway,
Brooklyn, NY 11230 645 Realty LLC

3402 Avenue I, Brooklyn, NY

11210 3402 Realty LLC

1439 Ocean Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11230 1439 Realty LLC

103-35 120th Street,

Richmond Hill, NY 11419 103-35 120 St Realty LLC

20-30 Merle Place, Staten

Island, NY 10305 20-30 Merle Realty LLC

1921 Avenue I, Brooklyn, NY

11230 1921 Realty LLC

410 Westminster Road,
Brooklyn, NY 11218 410 Westminster LLC

585 East 16th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11226 580-585 Realty LLC

580 East 17th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11226

2251 81st Street, Brooklyn,

NY 11214 2251 Realty LLC

209 East 16th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11226 209 Realty LLC

61

Building Previously Managed
by Lilmor and/or Controlled

by Lieberman

Building Currently
Managed by Lilmor and/or
Controlled by Lieberman

LLC Defendant Associated
with Building

40-71 Elbertson Street,
Elmhurst, NY 11373 40-71 Realty LLC

712 East 27th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11210 712 Realty LLC

723 East 27th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11210 723 Realty LLC

2420 Glenwood Road,
Brooklyn, NY 11210 2420 Realty LLC

1684 West 10th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11223 1684 Realty LLC

1660 East 21st Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11210 1660 Realty LLC

1011 Neilson Street, Far
Rockaway, NY 11691 1011 Neilson Realty LLC

1012 Nameoke Street, Far

Rockaway, NY 11691 1012 Nameoke Realty LLC

1633 West 10th Street,
Brooklyn, NY 11223 1633 West 10th Realty LLC

1902 Avenue L, Brooklyn,

NY 11230 Alit Realty LLC

1301 Avenue K, Brooklyn,

NY 11230 1301 Avenue K Realty LLC

1311 Avenue K, Brooklyn,

NY 11230 1311 Avenue K Realty LLC

1173 52nd Street, Brooklyn,

NY 11219
E&S Realty Management

LLC

915 84th Street, Brooklyn,

NY 11228 915 84th Street LLC

2001 Avenue P, Brooklyn,

NY 11229 2001 Avenue P LLC

2065 Ocean Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11230 2065 Ocean Avenue LLC

DAMIAN WILLIAMS   LETITIA JAMES 
United States Attorney for the   New York State Attorney General   
Southern District of New York  By:  JANE LANDRY-REYES 
By:  ZACHARY BANNON             Assistant Attorney General 
        JACOB LILLYWHITE           BRENT MELTZER, Chief,        
Assistant United States Attorneys           Housing Protection Unit          
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor   28 Liberty Street 
New York, New York 10007    New York, NY  10005 
Tel.:  (212) 637-2728/2800    Tel.:  (212) 416-8220/6096 
Fax: (212) 637-2750    Email: [email protected] 
Email: [email protected]  Email: [email protected] 
Email: [email protected]      
   
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and THE PEOPLE OF THE 
STATE OF NEW YORK, by LETITIA JAMES, New York State 
Attorney General, 
 

Plaintiffs, 
 

v. 
 
LILMOR MANAGEMENT LLC, MORRIS LIEBERMAN, 45-55 
REALTY LLC, 55 WINTHROP ST LLC, 130 CLARKSON 
REALTY LLC, 250-251 E 29 REALTY LLC, 251 E 29 ST LLC, 
1590 W 8 ST LLC, 105 AVE P REALTY LLC, 888 REALTY LLC, 
100 LINDEN REALTY LLC, 131 REALTY LLC, C & Z REALTY 
LLC, 2003 REALTY LLC, 1429 CARROLL STREET LLC, 59 
LOGAN ST LLC, 1269 E 18 STREET REALTY LLC, 334 
EASTERN PKWY REALTY LLC, 840 REALTY LLC, 1909 
REALTY LLC, 333 REALTY LLC, 1633 WEST 10TH REALTY 
LLC, ALIT REALTY LLC, 1301 AVENUE K REALTY LLC, 
1311 AVENUE K REALTY LLC, P BIGG REALTY LLC, 354 E 
21ST ST REALTY CORP, E & S REALTY MANAGEMENT LLC, 
915 84TH STREET LLC, 2001 AVENUE P LLC, 2065 OCEAN 
AVENUE LLC, 1690 PRESIDENT STREET LLC, 645 REALTY 
LLC, 3402 REALTY LLC, 1439 REALTY LLC, 103-25 120 ST 
REALTY LLC, 20-30 MERLE REALTY LLC, 1921 REALTY 
LLC, 410 WESTMINSTER LLC, 580-585 REALTY LLC, 2251 
REALTY LLC, 209 REALTY LLC, 40-71 REALTY LLC, 712 
REALTY LLC, 723 REALTY LLC, 2420 REALTY LLC, 1684 
REALTY LLC, 1660 REALTY LLC, 1011 NEILSON REALTY 
LLC, 1012 NAMEOKE REALTY LLC, 

 

Defendants. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

        COMPLAINT 

 

        24 Civ. 9520 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 1 of 63



ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................................... 3 

PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 3 

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 4 

I. Unsafe Housing and Public Health ............................................................... 4 

II. The Lieberman/Lilmor Portfolio of Substandard Housing ........................... 7 

III. Federal Lead Paint Safety Regulations ......................................................... 8 

IV. State and Local Lead Paint Safety Regulations .......................................... 14 

V. State and Local Housing Quality Laws ....................................................... 18 

VI. State General Business Law: Deceptive Business Practices ....................... 21 

VII. State Executive Law: Fraud or Illegality ..................................................... 21 

VIII. Public Nuisance ........................................................................................... 22 

DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATIONS OF LEAD PAINT SAFETY REGULATIONS ...................... 23 

I. Defendants’ Violations of the Lead Disclosure Rule .................................. 24 

II. Lilmor and Lieberman’s Violations of the RRP Rule ................................. 26 

III. Defendants’ Violations of State and Local Lead-Based Paint Law ............ 32 

IV. At Least 130 Children Have Suffered Lead Poisoning in These Buildings 35 

DEFENDANTS SUBJECT THEIR TENANTS TO UNSAFE AND UNSANITARY 
CONDITIONS; VIOLATE STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING LAW; AND MAINTAIN A 
PUBLIC NUISANCE ................................................................................................................... 36 

DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES
....................................................................................................................................................... 43 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................ 44 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................... 54 

 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 2 of 63



   
 

Plaintiff the United States of America (the “United States” or the “Government”), on behalf 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (“HUD”) on the counts indicated below, by its attorney, Damian Williams, 

United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Plaintiff the People of the State 

of New York (the “State” or the “State of New York”), by their attorney, Letitia James, New York 

State Attorney General, allege as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Across more than 2,500 apartments in New York City, landlord Morris Lieberman 

(“Lieberman”), his management company Lilmor Management LLC (“Lilmor”), and owners of 

properties managed by Lilmor (the “LLC Defendants”1) have disregarded federal, state, and local 

lead paint safety laws, failed to meet basic health and safety standards, and maintained a public 

nuisance.  Many apartments that Lieberman rents are riddled with peeling lead paint and lead dust; 

infested by rats, mice, and roaches; damp from perpetual leaks and covered with growing mold; 

and otherwise a danger to human health.  His victims, first and foremost, are his residents, many 

of whom are people of limited means and live in communities disproportionately burdened by 

environmental and other health hazards.  

2. Lead paint is toxic.  There is no level of lead in the human body that is safe for 

children.  When children ingest lead paint flakes or dust from deteriorated lead paint, they can 

suffer lifelong neurological and other severe injuries.  To avoid these devastating consequences, 

most housing built before 1978—including about 2,500 apartments in buildings controlled by 

Lieberman and managed by Lilmor (and hundreds more apartments that Lieberman formerly 

 
1 The LLC Defendants are those entities listed in the caption of this case, apart from Lilmor and 
Lieberman. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 3 of 63



2 

controlled or Lilmor formerly managed)—is subject to strict federal lead paint regulations that 

require landlords to warn tenants of this severe health risk and to take precautions to reduce the 

risk of poisoning by lead dust generated when performing maintenance.  New York state and New 

York City law impose additional lead paint safety regulations requiring investigation and 

remediation activities.  For years, Defendants have flouted these federal, state, and local lead paint 

safety regulations.  At least 130 children have suffered lead poisoning while living in Lieberman’s 

buildings since 2012, according to New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 

(“DOHMH”) records—a number that almost certainly understates the total number of poisoned 

children.   

3. Beyond the failure to comply with federal, state, and local lead paint safety 

regulations, Lieberman and Lilmor maintain dangerous and unsanitary conditions in their 

buildings.  Many tenants live without proper heat in the winter; with mold on their walls and 

ceilings; collapsing ceilings due to unaddressed leaks; and cockroach and rodent infestations.  

Since 2012, New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”) has 

issued thousands of violations for unsafe conditions in Defendants’ buildings.  These conditions 

present a direct threat to the health and safety of tenants and amount to a public nuisance. 

4. The United States brings this civil action to redress the unsafe and unsanitary 

conditions in these buildings.  It seeks injunctive and other equitable relief for violations of the 

federal Lead Disclosure Rule (24 C.F.R. part 35, subpart A, and 40 C.F.R. part 745, subpart F) and 

the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule (40 C.F.R. part 745, subpart E), and an order requiring 

Defendants to abate the public nuisance.  

5.  The State joins this civil action, seeking injunctive and other equitable relief for 

Defendants’ repeated violations of the New York City Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 4 of 63



3 

(“Local Law One”), see NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.1 et seq.; the NYC Asthma Free Housing 

Act (“Local Law 55”), see NYC Admin. Code § 27-2017 et seq.; the NYC Housing Maintenance 

Code (the “Housing Maintenance Code” or “HMC”), see NYC Admin. Code § 27-2001, et seq.; 

the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law (the “Multiple Dwelling Law” or “MDL”), see MDL 

§ 25 et seq., and the New York State Real Property Law (the “Real Property Law” or “RPL”), see 

RPL § 235-b.  The State also seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, restitution on behalf of 

tenants, and civil penalties from Defendants for their repeated and persistent violations of the local 

and state housing codes; relief for violating New York State General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349 

through deceptive business practices relating to these matters; and an order requiring Defendants 

to abate the public nuisance. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of  the federal claims in this 

action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2616, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 42 U.S.C. § 4852d.  It has 

subject matter jurisdiction over the State’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2616(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(b)(1), (c)(2), and (d), because all Defendants reside in this State and at least one resides in 

this district; because certain of the violations alleged in the complaint occurred in this district; and 

because some or all Defendants transact business or may be found in this district.  Furthermore, 

Defendants have expressly consented to venue in this district in a consent decree to be filed 

contemporaneously with this complaint. 

PARTIES 

8. Plaintiffs are the United States of America and the People of the State of New York.  

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 5 of 63



4 

9. Defendant Morris Lieberman has owned—in whole or part, through special 

purpose vehicles—and has controlled residential multi-family apartment buildings in New York 

City, including in the Southern District of New York.  

10. Defendant Lilmor Management LLC is a residential property management 

company controlled and partially owned by Lieberman.  It has managed buildings owned by 

Lieberman in New York City, including in the Southern District of New York, as well as buildings 

owned by third parties. 

11. The LLC Defendants are special-purpose vehicles that have nominally owned 

buildings in New York City, including in the Southern District of New York, that are managed by 

Lilmor.  In many cases these LLCs are owned in whole or part by Lieberman. 

BACKGROUND 

I.  Unsafe Housing and the Public Health  

12. Environmental hazards in the home threaten millions of people in the United States.   

13. Chief among these hazards is lead paint.2  Lead is toxic, and lead poisoning—

particularly in children—can have devastating, lifelong effects.  Children are easily poisoned in 

the home when they put lead paint flakes in their mouths or ingest lead-contaminated dust.  A 

child’s exposure to even small amounts of lead can cause irreversible neurological problems, 

including learning disabilities, reduced attention span, and behavioral problems.  Even for adults, 

ingestion of small amounts of lead can cause or exacerbate serious health conditions, including 

cancer, hypertension, and kidney failure.  

 
2 The terms “lead paint” and “lead paint hazards” as used in this complaint shall have the same 
meaning as, and are used interchangeably with, the terms “lead-based paint” and “lead-based paint 
hazards,” respectively, as defined in 24 C.F.R. §§ 35.86 and 35.110 and 40 C.F.R. §§ 745.103 and 
745.223, as applicable to federal claims, and NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.2(7)(b) and 28 
R.C.N.Y. § 11-01(t)(2), as applicable to state and local claims.   

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 6 of 63



5 

14. In 1992, Congress found that “low-level lead poisoning is widespread among 

American children, afflicting as many as 3,000,000 children under age 6, with minority and low-

income communities disproportionately affected,” 42 U.S.C. § 4851(1), and that even “at low 

levels, lead poisoning in children causes intelligence quotient deficiencies, reading and learning 

disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity, and behavior problems,” id. 

§ 4851(2).   

15. In 2004, the New York City Council found that childhood lead poisoning from paint 

was a preventable public health crisis. 

16. Beyond lead paint, other substandard living conditions threaten residents’ health, 

including by exacerbating asthma.  In 2018, in response to high incidence of debilitating asthma 

rates, especially amongst children in low-income communities of color, New York City enacted 

Local Law 55, which requires owners of multiple dwellings with three or more dwelling units to 

keep their tenants’ apartments free of mold and pests, including by fixing underlying conditions 

that lead to these problems.  See NYC Admin. Code §27-2017 et seq.  One study suggests that 

close to 80% of asthma in children is exacerbated by poor housing conditions such as from 

deteriorated paint and walls, mold, and presence of cockroaches, mice and other pests.3   

17. Other deficient housing conditions also impact health and safety of occupants.  For 

example, a lack of heat in winter threatens the health of the elderly in particular as they have high 

rates of cold-related hospitalizations.  

 
3 The Coalition for Asthma Free Homes, The Impact of Poor Housing Conditions on the Health of 
Asthmatic New Yorkers, 4, last https://takerootjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/
CAFHReport_20may09.pdf (accessed July 3, 2024). 
 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 7 of 63

https://takerootjustice.org/%E2%80%8Cwp-content/uploads/%E2%80%8C2019/06/%E2%80%8CCAFHReport%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C_20may09.pdf
https://takerootjustice.org/%E2%80%8Cwp-content/uploads/%E2%80%8C2019/06/%E2%80%8CCAFHReport%E2%80%8C%E2%80%8C_20may09.pdf


6 

18. It has long been “the policy of the United States” to “promote the goal of providing 

decent and affordable housing for all citizens.”  42 U.S.C. § 1437(a)(4).  While the responsibility 

to ensure decent housing is shared among federal, state, tribal, and local governments and the 

private sector, “the Federal Government should act where there is a serious need that private 

citizens or groups cannot or are not addressing responsibly.”  42 U.S.C. § 1437(a)(3).  Federal 

efforts to ensure  occupants have safe living conditions include EPA’s and HUD’s lead-based paint 

regulations.  See infra Part III.  More generally, however, the law has long recognized that 

widespread, substandard housing conditions may constitute a public nuisance, and the United 

States may sue to compel the abatement of nuisances that affect federal interests.  See infra Part 

VII(a).   

19. Similarly, state and local policy underscore the importance of safe and affordable 

housing, including as provided by Local Law One (for lead paint) and Local Law 55 (for asthma), 

and other essential health and safety requirements of the City’s Housing Maintenance Code and 

the State’s Multiple Dwelling Law. See infra Parts IV & V.  The New York State Attorney General 

also has authority to sue to enjoin “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts” or “persistent fraud or 

illegality” in “the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business,” Executive Law § 63(12), 

including non-compliance with local housing quality laws; to sue to enjoin deceptive acts or 

practices in the conduct of business, GBL § 349(b), including with respect to deceptive 

communications regarding housing quality issues; and to sue for abatement of a public nuisance 

under both Executive Law § 63(12) and as parens patriae.   

20. Moreover, both the federal and state governments recognize that unsafe and 

unsanitary housing may impact overburdened and underserved populations, including low-income 

populations. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 8 of 63



7 

II. The Lieberman/Lilmor Portfolio of Substandard Housing 

21. Lieberman owns, controls, and profits from a residential real estate portfolio that 

subjects residents to deficient conditions, including systematic violations of federal, state, and local 

lead paint safety regulations.  Lieberman’s agent has been included in the New York City Public 

Advocate’s list of the worst landlords in New York City.   

22. Lieberman controls—and, in most cases, owns in whole or in part indirectly 

through special purpose vehicles—about 2,500 rent-regulated apartments in 47 residential 

buildings in New York City.  At other times since 2012, he has also owned and/or controlled about 

250 additional apartments in nine other apartment buildings.  These combined 56 buildings are 

listed in Exhibit A to this complaint.  The buildings are largely located in communities where 

families have low to moderate incomes and that are disproportionately burdened by environmental 

and other health hazards.  

23. Lieberman exercises much of his control over these buildings through Defendant 

Lilmor.  Lieberman founded and personally controls Lilmor; Lieberman and his wife are each 50% 

owners of the firm.  

24. Lilmor is the current building manager for each of the buildings on Exhibit A that 

are identified as currently managed or controlled by Lieberman.  For the buildings identified on 

Exhibit A no longer managed or controlled by Lieberman, Lilmor was the building manager when 

it was managed or controlled by Lieberman.  As building manager, Lilmor is responsible for key 

functions relevant to health and safety in these buildings, including performing maintenance and 

repairs, as well as for acting as the owner’s agent for the purpose of making legally required 

disclosures to tenants regarding lead paint.  Lilmor receives tenant requests regarding necessary 

repairs or maintenance in the buildings, as well as notices of violations of health, safety, and 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 9 of 63



8 

housing standards from local government agencies.   Lilmor, as an agent of Lieberman and the 

LLC Defendants, executes leases with residents in these buildings. 

25. The LLC Defendants are special purpose vehicles that, at various points since 2012, 

have nominally owned buildings Lieberman controls or controlled, as indicated on Exhibit A.  

Lieberman also owns, in whole or part, and controls the majority of the LLC Defendants that 

appear on Exhibit A. 

26. As described below, Lieberman and Lilmor’s violations of federal, state, and local 

lead laws; their violation of state and local housing codes; and their maintenance of a public 

nuisance arise from policies and practices that impact and have impacted the entire 

Lieberman/Lilmor residential portfolio. 

III. Federal Lead Paint Safety Regulations 

27. In 1977, the federal government banned the use of lead-containing paint in 

residences built in 1978 or later.  16 C.F.R. Part 1303.  Lead paint had been frequently used in 

residences prior to that date and continues to be present in pre-1978 residential buildings across 

the country.   

28. Lead poisoning is a serious health problem in the New York metropolitan area. 

Each year, thousands of children under the age of six test are reported with elevated blood lead 

levels.4    

 
4 For the purpose of this complaint, the terms “lead poisoning” and “elevated blood lead level” 
refer to blood lead levels that equal or exceed 5 micrograms per deciliter, the applicable blood lead 
level reference value established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) 
between 2012 and 2021.  In 2021, the CDC reference value was lowered further to 3.5 micrograms 
per deciliter. Elevated blood lead levels are also currently defined by local law as 3.5 micrograms 
per deciliter or above. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 10 of 63



9 

29. In 1992, Congress enacted a “broad program to evaluate and reduce lead-based 

paint hazards in the Nation’s housing stock,” and “to ensure that the existence of lead-based paint 

hazards is taken into account . . . in the sale, rental, and renovation of homes and apartments.”  42 

U.S.C. § 4851a(2), (4). 

30. Among other things, Congress directed EPA and HUD to promulgate regulations 

requiring disclosure of information concerning lead paint to tenants and purchasers of pre-1978 

property and amended the Toxic Substances Control Act to provide for EPA to promulgate 

additional lead paint safety regulations applicable to the general public.  Residential Lead-Based 

Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, Title X, § 1018 (codified at 42 U.S.C. 

§ 4852d); id. § 1021 (codified at 15 U.S.C. subch. IV). 

31. Pursuant to these authorities, EPA and HUD promulgated the key federal lead paint 

regulations at issue here: the Lead Disclosure Rule and the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule. 

A. The Lead Disclosure Rule 

32. In 1996, HUD and EPA promulgated substantively identical versions of the “Lead 

Disclosure Rule.”  24 C.F.R. part 35, subpart A (HUD’s Lead Disclosure Rule); 40 C.F.R. part 745, 

subpart F (EPA’s Lead Disclosure Rule).   

33. The Lead Disclosure Rule requires landlords and their agents to provide disclosures 

concerning lead paint to prospective tenants prior to signing a new lease (or, in some cases, a 

renewal lease) in “target housing.”  “Target housing” means most housing constructed before 

1978.  Housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities and zero-bedroom dwellings (unless any 

child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing) are currently 

excepted.  42 U.S.C. § 4851b(17); 15 U.S.C. § 2681(17). 

34. Among other things, the Lead Disclosure Rule requires a landlord to provide the 

following information and documentation to prospective tenants prior to entering into a lease: 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 11 of 63



10 

• [A]n EPA-approved pamphlet that warns prospective tenants about the dangers of 
lead-based paint and provides advice on how to limit those risks.  24 C.F.R. 
§ 35.88(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 745.107(a)(1).   

• A “lead warning statement” contained in federal regulations that warns prospective 
tenants of the dangers of lead paint.  24 C.F.R. § 35.92(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. 
§ 745.113(b)(1). 

• “[A]ny . . . information available [to the landlord] concerning . . . known lead-based 
paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, such as the basis for the determination that 
lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards exist, the location of the lead-based 
paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, and the condition of the painted surfaces.”  24 
C.F.R. § 35.88(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 745.107(a)(2).   

• All records or reports regarding lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, 
including the results of inspections.  24 C.F.R. § 35.88(a)(4); 40 C.F.R. 
§ 745.107(a)(4). 

35. The information required to be disclosed by the Lead Disclosure Rule includes not 

only information related to the prospective tenant’s apartment but also information relating to 

common areas accessible to a tenant of that apartment.  24 C.F.R. § 35.88(a)(4); 40 C.F.R. 

§ 745.107(a)(4). 

36. The purpose of the Lead Disclosure Rule is to enable tenants to take steps to protect 

themselves and their families in light of the knowledge of the potential or actual presence of lead-

based paint or lead-based paint hazards in their apartments. 

37. For example, before a family becomes a tenant in an apartment that has lead-based 

paint or lead-based paint hazards, it may decide not to become obligated under the lease and not 

move in.  Alternatively, the family may attempt to reach agreement with the landlord, prior to 

signing the lease or occupying the apartment, to control any hazards or abate lead paint as a 

condition to the effectiveness of the lease.  

38. Even after moving into a unit with actual or potential lead paint or lead paint 

hazards, families can take specific steps to minimize the risks posed by lead paint, as described in 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 12 of 63



11 

the Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home pamphlet that is required to be provided to 

prospective tenants under the Lead Disclosure Rule.  These measures include the following: 

• Always keep painted surfaces in good condition to minimize deterioration. 

• Keep painted surfaces clean and free of dust.  Clean floors, window frames, 
windowsills, and other surfaces weekly.  Use a mop or sponge with warm water and 
a general all-purpose cleaner. 

• Thoroughly rinse sponges and mop heads often during cleaning of dirty or dusty 
areas, and again afterward. 

• Carefully clean up paint chips immediately without creating dust. 

• Talk to the landlord about fixing surfaces with peeling or chipping paint. 

39. Moreover, the pamphlet recommends specific steps that tenants can take to 

minimize risks to children: 

• Wash children’s hands often, especially before they eat and before nap time and 
bedtime. 

• Keep play areas clean.  Wash bottles, pacifiers, toys, and stuffed animals regularly. 

• Keep children from chewing windowsills or other painted surfaces. 

• Take precautions to avoid exposure to lead dust when remodeling. 

40. Finally, the pamphlet also contains the critical recommendation that families should 

“consult their health care provider about testing their children for lead.” 

B. The Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule  

41. Renovation and maintenance work that disturbs lead paint can expose tenants, 

visitors, and workers to toxic lead dust and debris. 

42. To address this health threat, in 2008, EPA promulgated the Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting (“RRP”) Rule, 40 C.F.R. part 745, subpart E.  For renovations (including maintenance 

work) covered by the rule, the RRP Rule imposes strict requirements regarding (a) training and 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 13 of 63



12 

certification; (b) notice to tenants; (c) preparation of the work area; (d) work practices used to 

disturb the painted surface; (e) cleaning of the work area; and (f) recordkeeping.   

43. The rule applies to “renovations” for compensation in pre-1978 “target housing,” 

except where the work area has been tested and found to be free of lead.  40 C.F.R. § 745.82.  

Target housing is thus presumed to contain lead-based paint unless testing has demonstrated to the 

contrary.   

44. “Renovation” is defined broadly to include “the modification of any existing 

structure, or portion thereof, that results in the disturbance of painted surfaces” and includes work 

such as “the removal of building components (e.g., walls, ceilings, plumbing, windows)” and 

“[t]he removal, modification or repair of painted surfaces or painted components (e.g., 

modification of painted doors, surface restoration, window repair, surface preparation activity 

(such as sanding, scraping, or other such activities that may generate paint dust)).”  40 C.F.R. 

§ 745.83.  Certain de minimis work referred to as “minor repair and maintenance activities” is 

excluded from the definition of “renovation,” including most interior work affecting six or fewer 

square feet of painted surfaces.  Id. 

45. The RRP Rule requires that a firm performing covered renovations obtain an EPA 

certification and assign an EPA-certified renovator to perform certain specified tasks and to 

supervise or direct the work generally.  Id. §§ 745.81(a)(3), 745.89(d)(2), 745.90(a).  The certified 

renovator must provide on-the-job training in lead-safe work practices to all workers performing 

renovations who are not themselves certified renovators.  Id. §§ 745.81(a)(3), 745.89(d)(1).  The 

rule also requires distribution to tenants of information about lead-safe work practices and the 

dangers of lead hazards, id. § 745.84; requires renovation firms to obtain written acknowledgement 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 14 of 63



13 

of receipt of such information by tenants, id. § 745.84; and requires the posting of warning signs, 

id. §§ 745.84(b)(2)(ii), 745.85(a)(1). 

46. Before renovation work begins, the RRP Rule requires that the work area be 

isolated to contain lead dust, id. § 745.85(a)(2), including (when inside an apartment), by covering 

the floor surface in the work area with plastic sheeting or similar protection, id. 

§ 745.85(a)(2)(i)(D); by removing all objects from the work area or covering them, id. 

§ 745.85(a)(2)(i)(A); by closing and covering all ducts in the work area, id. § 745.85(a)(2)(i)(B); 

and by closing windows and doors in the work area and covering such doors with plastic sheeting, 

id. § 745.85(a)(2)(i)(C). 

47. The RRP Rule also prohibits the use of certain methods and machines that generate 

dust or debris.  Id. § 745.85(a)(3).   

48. As waste is generated during renovations, the RRP Rule requires that it be 

contained and disposed of in a manner that prevents the release of dust and debris outside the work 

area.  Id. § 745.85(a)(4). 

49. After the renovation work is complete, the RRP Rule requires that the work area be 

cleaned to eliminate all dust, debris, and residue, id. § 745.85(a)(5), including (when inside an 

apartment) by collecting and sealing paint chips and debris, id. § 745.85(a)(5)(i)(A); carefully 

removing and disposing of the protective sheeting used to isolate the work area, id. 

§ 745.85(a)(5)(i)(B); cleaning the walls with a damp cloth or HEPA vacuum, id. 

§ 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(A); vacuuming, with a HEPA vacuum, all remaining surfaces and objects, 

including furniture, id. § 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(B); and wiping all remaining surfaces and objects with a 

damp cloth and mopping uncarpeted floors, id. § 745.85(a)(5)(ii)(C). 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 15 of 63



14 

50. To ensure cleaning of the work area was adequate, the RRP Rule requires careful 

verification of cleaning by a certified renovator, id. § 745.85(b), including (when inside an 

apartment) visual inspection to determine whether dust, debris, or residue remains, id. 

§ 745.85(b)(1)(i); and the wiping of windowsills, uncarpeted floors, and countertops in the work 

area with a cloth and comparison of the color of the wiped cloth to the color of an EPA cleaning 

verification card, id. § 745.85(b)(1)(ii). 

51. Finally, the RRP Rule requires that the firm conducting renovation work document 

its compliance with the RRP Rule and maintain those records for at least three years.  Id. § 745.86. 

IV. State and Local Lead Paint Safety Regulations  

52. The NYC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act, otherwise known as Local 

Law One, imposes obligations on owners of multi-family residential properties related to notice 

and management of lead-based paint.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.1 et seq.  Local Law One 

focuses on “primary prevention, which means eliminating lead hazards before children are 

exposed” because that is an “essential tool to combat childhood lead poisoning,” and on identifying 

children who are most at risk.  See NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.1 (Statement of Findings and 

Purposes).5 

53.  The Act establishes a rebuttable presumption that the paint in apartments that were 

built prior to January 1, 1960 (when New York City first imposed limits the level of lead in paint 

 
5 In 1992, the State amended existing Public Health Law to authorize the State Health 
Commissioner as well as local county health departments and local housing code agencies to order 
removal of paint “conditions conducive to lead poisoning” and also to require mandatory blood 
lead level screenings for children.  N.Y. Public Health Law §§ 1370–1376-a.  In New York City, 
Local Law One, together with the New York City Health Code, 24 R.C.N.Y. § 173.13-14, 
governing safety standards for work that disturbs lead paint, exceed the minimum requirements of 
the corresponding New York state law.  Accordingly, references herein to state and local lead paint 
safety regulations will be to New York City local law. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 16 of 63



15 

used in homes), where a child under six resides, is “lead based paint.”  Id. § 27-2056.5; see also 

24 R.C.N.Y. § 173.14(b).  The presumption may be rebutted, or a building maybe exempted from 

some requirements of the Act, if the owner submits evidence to HPD that there is no lead-based 

paint in the building.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.5(a), (b). 

54. The Act requires owners of these apartment buildings where children under six 

reside “to prevent the reasonably foreseeable occurrence” of lead-based paint hazards and 

expeditiously remediate those hazards.  Id. § 27-2056.3.  

55. As of January 1, 2020, “resides” means that a child routinely spends 10 or more 

hours per week in an apartment.  Id. § 27-2056.2(12); see also 28 R.C.N.Y. §11-01(bb). 

56. The term “owner” includes an “agent, or any other person, firm or corporation, 

directly or indirectly in control of a dwelling.”  Id. § 27-2004(45). 

57. As explained below, among other things, Local Law One imposes obligations on 

owners of multi-family residential properties to provide notice of potential lead paint hazards and 

also imposes additional affirmative obligations to inquire about whether any children under six 

years of age reside in apartments under an owner’s control, and to investigate, inspect, and 

remediate and/or abate any lead-based paint to eliminate lead hazards before children are exposed 

or lead poisoned.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.1 et seq. 

A. Occupant Inquiry and Investigation Requirements 

58. The annual inquiry and investigation requirements of Local Law One apply to 

apartment buildings with at least three apartments that were either: (1) built before January 1, 1960 

(unless the presumption of lead-based paint has been rebutted or the building or apartment has 

been exempted by HPD); or (2) built between January 1, 1960 and January 1, 1978 if the owner 

has actual knowledge of the presence of lead paint.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(a). 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 17 of 63



16 

59. Owners of these apartment buildings are required to ascertain whether a child under 

six resides in a dwelling unit by providing a notice to tenants inquiring as to whether a child under 

the age of six resides or will reside in the apartment.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(d)(1). 

Owners are required to make these inquiries at the signing of an initial lease, at renewal leases, or 

upon any agreement to lease.  Id.; see also 28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-03(a)(1).  

60. Thereafter, between January 1 and January 16 of each year, the owner must again 

send this notice to tenants inquiring as to whether a child under six years old resides within a unit.  

NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(e)(1).  If the owner does not receive a response from the occupant 

by February 15 and the owner does not “otherwise have actual knowledge” as to whether a child 

under the age of six resides therein, the owner must “at reasonable times and upon reasonable 

notice,” inspect the occupant’s apartment to determine whether a child of applicable age lives 

there.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(e)(3)(i). Owners are obligated “when necessary, [to] 

conduct an investigation in order to make that determination.”  Id.  If the owner’s investigation is 

unsuccessful by March 1, they are required to notify DOHMH.  Id. § 27-2056.4(e)(3)(i); see also 

28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-03(b). 

B. Lead-Based Paint Investigation Requirement 

61. Local Law One further requires owners to conduct investigations at least annually 

for “peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deteriorated sub surfaces, friction surfaces, and impact 

surfaces” in apartments and common areas of buildings subject to Local Law One where they have 

been notified or they have actual knowledge that a child under six resides.  NYC Admin. Code 

§ 27-2056.4(a).  Owners must expeditiously remediate all lead-based paint hazards and underlying 

defects identified.  Id. § 27-2056.3.  As discussed above, the owner must take steps to ascertain 

whether a child under six years old resides within a dwelling unit, if unknown.   

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 18 of 63



17 

62. Local Law One also imposes an additional investigation requirement that must be 

conducted by an EPA-certified inspector or risk assessor (who is not an agent of the owner or a 

contractor hired to remediate lead-paint hazards) to assess the presence of lead-based paint within 

a unit using an “x-ray fluorescence analyzer.”  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(a-1).  This 

investigation is required to be completed: (1) by August 9, 2025; (2) within a year of a child under 

six years old coming to reside in the unit; or (3) as required by an order of DOHMH, whichever is 

earliest.  Id. 

63. For both of these investigations, owners are required to provide the results of the 

investigation to the unit’s occupant in writing, including providing the occupant with any report 

generated during the investigation, and the owner must also keep a copy of any such report for at 

least ten years.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.4(f); see also 28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-04(c)(1) (the record 

of the investigation shall “include the location of such inspection and the results of such inspection 

for each surface”).  

C. Turnover and Remediation/Abatement Requirements 

64. Local Law One also imposes requirements on an owner of qualifying buildings to 

conduct specified lead-based paint remediation and abatement work upon the earlier of: (i) 

turnover of any unit; (ii) by July 1, 2027 for any unit where a child of applicable age resides as of 

January 1, 2025; or (iii) within 3 years of the date a child of applicable age begins to reside in any 

unit.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.8(a). 

65. The requirement work includes: (1) remediating all lead-based paint hazards and 

any underlying defects; (2) making all bare floors, windowsills, and window wells in the unit 

smooth and cleanable; (3) providing for the removal or permanent covering of all lead-based paint 

on all friction surfaces on all doors and door frames; and (4) providing for the removal or 

permanent covering of all lead-based paint on all friction surfaces on all windows, or provide for 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 19 of 63



18 

the installation of replacement window channels or slides on all lead-based painted friction 

surfaces on all windows.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.8(a)(1)-(4). 

66. After an owner has completed this work, a lead dust clearance test must be 

performed by a certified third party (neither the owner nor the individual or company that 

performed any repairs or construction to prepare the apartment for turnover).  NYC Admin. Code 

§§ 27-2056.11(a)(3), 2056.11(b); see also 28 R.C.N.Y. §§ 11-06(b)(2)(iii), (3)(ii), (4), and (g)(3). 

67. Owners must certify compliance with the requirements above in a notice provided 

to a new occupant upon signing of their lease (including renewal leases) if any, or upon any 

agreement to lease, or commencement of occupancy if there is no lease.  28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-05(d).   

The owner must also provide the occupant with a pamphlet developed by the DOHMH about the 

prevention of lead-based paint hazards.  28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-03(a)(1).   

68. Any owner who fails to comply with the requirements to perform work at turnover 

or prior to turnover in the case of a child of applicable age residing in a unit and subsequent 

clearance testing is liable for a class C immediately hazardous violation.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-

2056.8(c). 

V. State and Local Housing Quality Laws 

69. State and local law impose numerous requirements on property owners to ensure 

their buildings are free from conditions other than lead.  As relevant here and as discussed below, 

these laws include Local Law 55, the New York State Multiple Dwelling Law, the New York State 

Real Property Law, and the New York City Housing Maintenance Code. 

A. NYC Asthma Free Housing Act (Local Law 55 of 2018) 

70.  The NYC Asthma Free Housing Act (a/k/a Local Law 55) requires owners of 

multiple dwellings with three or more dwelling units to keep their tenants’ apartments free of mold 

and pests, including by fixing underlying conditions that lead to these problems.  Owners have 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 20 of 6319 

both an obligation to remediate any condition constituting an indoor allergen hazard under the law, 

and are responsible for proactively preventing the “reasonably foreseeable occurrence of such 

conditions.”  NYC Admin Code § 27-2017.1.  Local Law 55 thus imposes obligations to 

investigate for the existence of such conditions, to ensure that asthma triggers are removed after a 

tenant moves out and before a subsequent tenant moves in, and to use safe work-practices while 

conducting that remediation. 

71. Investigation and Remediation: Local Law 55 directs owners to conduct 

investigations at least annually in all occupied units and in common areas for any conditions that 

are reasonably foreseeable to cause an indoor allergen hazard (such as mice, cockroaches, rats and 

mold) and to respond when an occupant makes a complaint or when HPD issues a notice of 

violation for condition likely to cause an indoor allergen hazard.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-

2017.2(b).   

72. Owners must remediate pest infestations and violations for pests using integrated 

pest management practices to safely control pests and to fix conditions leading to pest problems.  

NYC Admin. Code § 27-2017.8(a); see also 24 R.C.N.Y. §151.02.   

73. Upon vacancy and prior to re-occupancy, an owner must remediate all visible mold 

and pest infestations and underlying defects in a unit and by thoroughly cleaning and vacuuming 

all carpeting and furniture (if provided by the owner).   NYC Admin. Code §27-2017.5(a).  The 

owner must also certify in writing to the incoming occupant that the unit is in compliance with this 

mandate.  NYC Admin. Code §27-2017.5(b).  

74. Work Practices:  When remediating mold or mold hazards, owners must follow 

work practices that include (1) covering any furniture or items that cannot be removed with plastic 

sheeting; (2) minimizing dust and debris dispersion; (3) cleaning an area with soap or detergent 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 21 of 63



20 

and water; (4) removing and discarding materials that cannot be properly cleaned; and (5) leaving 

the work area dry and visibly free from mold, dust and debris.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-2017.9.   

Owners must certify that the required work practices were followed when certifying correction of 

a violation.  Id. § 27-2017.9(c). 

75. Notices:  All leases offered to prospective tenants must contain a notice advising 

them of obligations of the owner and tenant pursuant to Local Law 55.  NYC Admin. Code § 27-

2017.2(c).  Owners must also provide prospective tenants with a DOHMH pamphlet outlining 

information about indoor allergens for tenants and requirements imposed on owners to keep 

dwelling units free of pests and mold.   Id. 

B. The MDL, the RPL, and the HMC:  Maintenance, Services and Utilities  

76. New York State Multiple Dwelling Law applies to residential buildings with three 

or more dwelling units in cities, including New York City.  The MDL sets out a tenants’ right to 

have their unit, including common areas, be kept in good repair by the owner.  MDL § 78.   

77. New York State Real Property Law § 235-b provides that in every lease or rental 

agreement for a residential dwelling there is an implied warranty of habitability.  RPL § 235-b.  

Under this implied warranty, a landlord has a non-delegable duty to make sure that occupants are 

not subject to conditions that are dangerous, hazardous, or detrimental to their life, health, or safety.   

RPL § 235-b(1). 

78. The statutory warranty of habitability is incorporated by operation of law into the 

local NYC Housing Maintenance Code (NYC Admin. Code § 27-2001 et seq.).  The HMC applies 

to all residential apartments in New York City and sets out minimum standards for owners’ duties 

to repair and maintain safe and sanitary housing conditions, including for lead-based paint 

abatement, the control of pests and other asthma allergen triggers (described above), the collection 

of waste, and for the provision of heat and hot water.  Violations of the HMC are classified as “A” 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 22 of 63



21 

(non-hazardous), “B” (hazardous) and “C” (immediately hazardous).  NYC Admin. Code § 27-

2115.  The penalties provided for in the HMC include the imposition of fines for false certification 

of correction of violations.  Id. § 25-2115(a)(4). 

VI. State General Business Law: Deceptive Business Practices  

79. Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business or in the furnishing of 

any service in New York state are unlawful.  GBL § 349(a).   

80. The New York State Attorney General is authorized to bring actions to enjoin 

persons or entities from engaging in deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of business.  GBL 

§ 349(b).  The New York State Attorney General is also authorized to seek restitution of any money 

or property obtained directly or indirectly by any such unlawful acts or practices, as well as civil 

penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.  See GBL § 350-d.   

81. A deceptive act or practice in the conduct of business and furnishing of a service 

can include the misrepresentation that an apartment is habitable and free of health and safety 

hazards when it is not, or the failure to make required certifications or disclosures to tenants under 

federal and local lead paint disclosure rules and/or the false representation that qualified work has 

been performed and code violations were corrected.   

82. The State has timely served Defendants with a pre-litigation notice pursuant to 

GBL § 349(c) and/or Defendants have waived notice. 

VII. State Executive Law: Fraud or Illegality 

83. New York Executive Law § 63(12) authorizes the New York State Attorney 

General to commence an action for injunctive and other relief, including penalties related to any 

underlying statute, against any person or business entity that has engaged in “repeated fraudulent 

or illegal acts” or “persistent fraud or illegality” in “the carrying on, conducting or transaction of 

business.”   

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 23 of 63



22 

84. “Illegal” conduct under Executive Law § 63(12) includes the violation of any 

federal, state, or local law or regulation, including those related to lead-based paint and safe 

housing.   

VIII. Public Nuisance 

85. A public nuisance exists where there is a substantial and unreasonable interference 

with a right common to the general public. This includes circumstances where a landlord 

significantly interferes with the public health, the public safety, the public comfort, or the public 

convenience, by failing to provide safe and sanitary living conditions to thousands of residents.  It 

includes conduct that is continuous and longstanding, involves repeated violations of law, and is 

undertaken by a landlord who knows or should have known that the conduct significantly affects 

the public health.  

86. The United States has standing to sue to abate a public nuisance that impacts 

significant federal interests.  Significant federal interests are affected by the conduct at issue in 

this complaint, which affects interstate commerce, including but not limited to the following: the 

United States’ interests in promoting decent and affordable housing; the United States’ interest in 

preventing conduct or conditions proximate to federally subsidized units that exist in more than a 

dozen of these buildings and may come to exist in others from impacting those units; and the 

United States’ interest in avoiding additional costs caused by the public nuisance, including 

increased costs to federal health care programs from the adverse impact of the conditions on the 

health of individuals insured by federal health care programs such as Medicare or Medicaid.   

87. The State of New York, by its Attorney General, has authority to bring an action 

seeking to enjoin nuisance conditions which affect its residents.  The term “nuisance” as defined 

by Multiple Dwelling Law: 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 24 of 63



23 

. . . shall be held to embrace public nuisance as known at common law or in equity 
jurisprudence.  Whatever is dangerous to human life or detrimental to health, and 
. . . whatever renders the air…unwholesome, are also severally, in contemplation 
of this law, nuisances.  All such nuisances are unlawful. 

 
MDL § 309(1)(a).   

88. The City of New York has adopted the same definition of nuisance in its Health 

Code.  See NYC Admin. Code § 17-142.  Further, NYC Administrative Code § 7-701 et. seq. 

(popularly known as the “Nuisance Abatement Law”) was enacted to prohibit the use of property 

in “. . . flagrant violation of the building code . . . health laws . . . multiple dwelling law. . . all of  

which interfere with the quality of life[,] . . .  public health, safety and welfare of the people of the 

city [of New York] . . . .” Id. § 7-701.  The Nuisance Abatement Law mirrors the Health Code 

definition of nuisance amongst the types of nuisances for which a permanent injunction may be 

sought.  Id. § 7-703, 7-706(a), and 7-714.  Section 7-706(h) of the Nuisance Abatement Law 

provides that a penalty may be awarded against a defendant who intentionally conducted, 

maintained, or permitted a public nuisance. 

89. Finally, a state-common-law public nuisance is an offense against the State when 

the conduct leading to the nuisance condition amounts to a substantial interference with the 

exercise of a common right of the public or endangers the health, safety or comfort of a 

considerable number of people.   

DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATIONS OF 
LEAD PAINT SAFETY REGULATIONS 

90. Defendants have systematically violated federal, state and local lead paint safety 

rules.  Their conduct puts tenants—particularly children under six—and workers at increased risk 

of lead poisoning.  As described below, see infra ¶¶ 132-135, since 2012, at least 130 children 

living in Defendants’ buildings in New York City have suffered lead poisoning. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 25 of 63



24 

I. Defendants’ Violations of the Lead Disclosure Rule 

91. Since at least 2012, Defendants have routinely violated the Lead Disclosure Rule.   

92. Lilmor and the LLC Defendants have admitted that they systematically violated the 

Lead Disclosure Rule from at least June 1, 2012, through November 15, 2020, including by:  

• Failing to “disclose the presence of any known lead-based paint and/or lead-
based paint hazards in target housing . . . to purchasers or lessees of such 
housing before selling or leasing the housing, as is required under 24 C.F.R. 
§ 35.88(a)(2)”; 

• Failing to “disclose ‘any additional information available concerning the known 
lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, such as the basis for the 
determination that lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards exist, the 
location of the lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, and the 
condition of the painted surfaces,’ to prospective purchasers or lessees of target 
housing, as required under 24 C.F.R. § 35.88(a)(2)”; and 

• Failing to “provide records and reports available to them pertaining to lead-
based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards to prospective purchasers and 
lessees of target housing—including records and reports regarding common 
areas and other residential dwellings in multifamily target housing, as is 
required under 24 C.F.R. § 35.88(a)(4).” 

93. In addition to these admitted violations, the Government’s investigation revealed 

other failures in Defendants’ Lead Disclosure Rule practices.  For example, in 103 lease files 

reviewed by the Government, addressing certain units through 2018, Defendants never provided 

tenants with a lead disclosure form including a lead warning statement informing tenants about the 

dangers of lead paint.  And in 64 of these 103 files, Defendants made no disclosures despite 

knowing that the apartments contained lead-based paint, based on citations previously received for 

violations of New York City’s Housing Maintenance Code. 

94. Defendants’ systematic failure to warn their tenants about lead paint violated the 

Lead Disclosure Rule and put their tenants, particularly pregnant tenants and young children, at 

risk.  If tenants knew the peeling paint in their apartment contained lead, they could have declined 

to rent the apartment entirely or, if they decided to rent anyway, they would have been better able 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 26 of 63



25 

to protect themselves and their families.  Even if Defendants themselves did not know specifically 

of the existence of lead paint or lead paint hazards, their providing the Lead Disclosure Form with 

the required lead warning statement and providing the EPA’s pamphlet would have enabled tenants 

to guard against the risk of harm, as Congress intended.  

95. Unfortunately, these risks were not just theoretical.  For example, in April 2015, 

the LLC Defendant that owned one of Defendants’ buildings received five violations from HPD 

for lead-based paint hazards in a unit at that address. 

 

96. In May 2015, Lilmor hired an abatement firm to address the specific areas that had 

been identified by HPD.  The firm abated the violations by a mix of removal (which eliminates 

lead-based paint from a surface) and enclosure (which leaves the lead-based paint in place).  

Because that abatement process intentionally left lead in the unit, Lilmor had actual knowledge of 

the presence of lead in the unit. 

 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 27 of 63



26 

97. Nevertheless, when the LLC Defendant, through Lilmor, entered a new lease with 

the tenants of the unit in February 2016, it did not (1) inform the tenants that Defendants knew that 

their unit continued to contain lead paint; or (2) provide the tenants with available records 

reflecting lead paint violations and the abatement that included leaving lead paint in place.  The 

Lead Disclosure Rule required Defendants to provide their tenants with this information. 

98. Sadly, ten months later, in December 2016, blood testing performed on the tenants’ 

one-year-old child showed elevated blood-lead levels.  Had the tenants been warned about lead in 

the unit, as required by law, they could have taken steps to protect themselves or insisted that 

Defendants’ eliminate existing hazards in the apartment. 

99. Since 2012, Lieberman has been ultimately responsible for ensuring that residential 

units managed by Lilmor comply with the Lead Disclosure Rule.  Throughout this period, he 

maintained operational control over Lilmor, and the Lilmor employees responsible for leasing and 

regulatory compliance reported up a chain of command that ended with Lieberman.  Although he 

had the power to ensure Lilmor’s compliance with the Lead Disclosure Rule, he failed to do so 

even after the Government began investigating his company. 

100. In light of Defendants’ systematic non-compliance, they are likely to continue 

violating the Lead Disclosure Rule in the absence of an injunction.  

II. Lilmor and Lieberman’s Violations of the RRP Rule 

101. In addition to their widespread non-compliance with the Lead Disclosure Rule, 

Lilmor and Lieberman have violated the RRP Rule throughout their portfolio, both during routine 

maintenance work conducted by Lilmor superintendents and in large-scale renovation projects 

conducted by other entities under their control. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 28 of 63



27 

A. Lilmor’s Superintendents Conduct Maintenance Work in Violation of the RRP Rule. 

102. Lilmor has never been certified as a renovation firm pursuant to the RRP Rule, nor 

have its superintendents been trained and certified as certified renovators pursuant to that rule.   

103. Despite lacking certifications and related training, Lilmor has routinely relied on 

its superintendents to conduct paint-disturbing work covered by the requirements of the RRP Rule.  

For example, Lilmor’s internal work order database reflects that, on July 20, 2016, the 

superintendent of one of Defendants’ buildings conducted work described in the database as 

“REPAIR PRIVATE HALLWAY AND ENTIRE APT BULGING WALL.”  As noted above, the 

RRP Rule governs “modification or repair of painted surfaces or painted components (e.g., 

modification of painted doors . . .)” above de minimis levels. 

104. In another example, the work order database reflects that the superintendent of 

another building conducted work described as “SCRAPE OFF PEELING PAINT FROM BDRM 

CEILING—DONE” on December 23, 2015.  Again, the RRP Rule governs “surface preparation 

activity (such as sanding, scraping, or other such activities that may generate paint dust).” 

105. In interviews, Lilmor tenants have confirmed that Lilmor’s superintendents 

conducted the kind of work described above.  One tenant told investigators that “[t]he 

superintendent is sent to make almost all repairs.”  Another tenant described a large recurring leak 

in her bathroom ceiling for which the building’s superintendent would routinely come to cut out 

portions of the ceiling  that were leaking and patch them with plywood. 

106. Because Lilmor’s superintendents have not been trained or certified to conduct 

work under the RRP Rule, between 2012 and the present they did not follow the RRP Rule’s 

requirements: They did not distribute informational pamphlets to tenants; post warning signs; 

exclude tenants from work areas; follow lead-safe work practices; or maintain records of 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 29 of 63



28 

compliance.  Lilmor’s failure to take these basic, mandatory steps put its tenants, visitors, and 

workers at risk of exposure to dust containing lead during maintenance projects in their units. 

107. Although it is not always possible to trace the origin of lead exposure, Lilmor’s 

documents reflect instances where its superintendents disturbed lead paint in a unit without 

complying with the RRP Rule and shortly after a child within the unit suffered lead poisoning.   

108. For example, in January of 2020, the superintendent of one building performed 

substantial repairs within a tenant’s apartment, as reflected in the following work order: 

 

Less than two months later, blood testing of a two-year old child living in that apartment showed 

elevated blood lead levels. 

109. Similarly, in June of 2012, the superintendent of another building conducted 

significant work in an apartment within that building, including the repair of bathroom wall tiles 

and of a hole in the kitchen ceiling, as reflected in the work order below: 

 

110. In November of 2012, blood testing of a child living in that apartment showed 

elevated blood lead levels the day before his second birthday. 

111. The employees at Lilmor responsible for the hiring and training of superintendents, 

as well as for decisions about what work should be conducted by superintendents and what work 

should be outsourced to contractors, reported through a chain of command that ended with Morris 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 30 of 63



29 

Lieberman.  At all times relevant to this complaint, Morris Lieberman had final decision-making 

authority over hiring decisions, training decisions, and decisions regarding whether work would 

be conducted by in-house employees or contractors, and could have but did not take action to cause 

compliance. 

B. Lilmor and Lieberman Violated the RRP Rule in Larger Renovation Projects. 

112. When Lilmor needed to conduct renovation projects larger in scale than those that 

it required its superintendents to conduct, it would often hire a purported independent contractor—

“Individual A”—to perform the renovations. 

113. Individual A conducts renovation work through an LLC in which he is the only 

employee, sometimes with the assistance of a limited number of independent contractors that he 

employs.  Individual A’s firm is a “mom and pop shop,” as described by the Lilmor employee with 

responsibility for facilitating apartment repairs and renovations.  Individual A’s LLC derives 

substantially all (if not all) of its income from projects assigned to it by Lilmor. 

114. Individual A conducts renovation projects in Lilmor housing under the direct 

supervision and control of Lilmor employees.  When Lilmor tasks Individual A with a project, he 

goes to the apartment, takes pictures of the anticipated worksite, and sends them to the Lilmor 

employee responsible for managing repairs and renovations.  That Lilmor employee would then 

instruct Individual A on how to perform the project.  Once completed, Individual A would send 

photographs of the worksite to the Lilmor employee, who would approve the work and authorize 

payment. 

115. Lilmor also assumed authority over Individual A’s compliance with the RRP Rule.  

When the RRP Rule’s certification requirement first came into effect in 2010, Lilmor scheduled 

Individual A for individual renovator training and arranged for his LLC’s certification.  After 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 31 of 63



30 

Individual A’s and his LLC’s certifications lapsed in 2015, Lilmor did not cause either to be 

renewed until February 2021. 

116. Despite the fact that Individual A’s LLC’s certification had lapsed, between 2015 

and 2021, Lilmor continued to use Individual A to conduct renovation projects subject to the RRP 

Rule.   

117. For example, in December of 2019, Individual A repaired the condition pictured 

below on a window within an apartment in 1311 Avenue K: 

 

118. And as another example, in June of 2019, Individual A removed a large section of 

crumbling ceiling from the bathroom of an apartment in 55 Winthrop, replaced the sheetrock, and 

repainted it, as pictured below: 

 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 32 of 63



31 

119. Individual A has admitted in communications with the Government that when he 

conducted this kind of renovation work on behalf of Lilmor, he did not provide tenants with the 

EPA pamphlet on lead safety that is required to be distributed under the RRP Rule, nor did he 

maintain any records of compliance with other aspects of the RRP Rule.  Furthermore (and as 

mentioned above), these projects were conducted by a firm and renovators who were not certified 

to conduct work under the RRP Rule.  Upon information and belief, Individual A did not follow 

the work practice requirements of the RRP Rule during these renovations, either. 

120. Lilmor’s work order database reflects numerous examples of Individual A being 

used by Lilmor to conduct comparable work in Lilmor apartments.   

121. As with the work conducted by Lilmor’s superintendents, projects undertaken by 

Individual A were sometimes followed closely in time by children testing positive for elevated 

blood lead levels. 

122. In January 2020, for example, Individual A conducted a renovation project in an 

apartment that involved the repair of missing tiles within a bathroom and the replacement of a 

damaged door, as reflected in the work order below: 

 

In June 2020, blood testing of a child who was less than a year old showed elevated blood lead 

levels in the same apartment. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 33 of 63



32 

123. In another apartment, Individual A conducted multiple renovation projects over the 

course of late 2015 through mid-2016, including the removal of mold from painted surfaces and 

the repair of a hallway ceiling.   

 

 

In November 2016, blood testing of an eight-year-old child who had been living in the apartment 

during those prior renovation projects showed elevated blood lead levels. 

124. The Lilmor employees responsible for managing the work conducted by Individual 

A reported through a chain of command that ended with Morris Lieberman.  At all times relevant 

to the complaint, Lieberman had authority to ensure that Individual A conducted work in 

compliance with the RRP Rule (or to stop assigning work to Individual A altogether), but he failed 

to exercise that authority. 

III. Defendants’ Violations of State and Local Lead-Based Paint Law  

125. For years after its passage, Defendants failed to comply even nominally with its 

obligations under Local Law One, with the result that HPD has placed over 1,500 violations across 

Defendants’ buildings from 2012 to date for lead paint hazards alone. 

A. Defendants’ Failure to Certify Turnover Lead Paint Abatement and Distribute the 
DOHMH Pamphlet on Lead Based Paint Hazards 

126. Like their failure to comply with the Lead Disclosure Rule, until at least 2020, 

Defendants ignored their obligation to certify in initial and renewal leases to its rent-stabilized 

tenants that work to remediate lead-based paint hazards had been done at the vacancy or turnover 

of their units in compliance with NYC Admin. Code § 27-2056.8 and 28 R.C.N.Y. § 11-05(d).   

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 34 of 63



33 

Defendants’ practice, as demonstrated by the sample below, was simply to leave that certification 

(and their related certification that they had distributed the relevant DOHMH pamphlet) 

completely blank:   

 

127. For example, in January 2018, a tenant who moved into an apartment signed a lease 

and notified Defendants that a child under six would be residing in the apartment.  As shown above, 

Defendants failed to certify that lead paint abatement and remediation work was done before the 

family moved in.  They also failed to certify that the DOHMH pamphlet, which would have given 

the tenant basic information about how to identify and prevent lead based paint hazards, was 

provided.   

128. The premises of that apartment were built in 1922 and therefore are presumed under 

the law to contain lead based paint.  In fact, Defendants were aware that tests had come back 

positive for lead based paint in multiple other units at that building before entering into a new lease 

with the tenants.  Defendants failed to properly inform the tenant at lease signing of the hazards of 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 35 of 63



34 

lead based paint when they were aware that lead-based paint had been found at the premises and 

that a child under six years old would be moving in. 

B. Defendants’ Failure to Conduct Investigations 

129. For every child under six years old that came to reside in an apartment in 

Defendants’ portfolio, Defendants were obligated within one year to “cause an investigation to be 

made for peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deteriorated subsurfaces, friction surfaces and impact 

surfaces” to determine any lead-based paint hazards needing remediation or abatement pursuant 

to its obligation under Local Law One.  See NYC Admin Code § 27-2056.4(a).  From at least 2015 

to at least 2019, Defendants failed to conduct these required investigations. 

130. In fact, Defendants made no effort to investigate the residence of the child under 

six who came to reside in the same apartment discussed in Paragraphs 126 and 127, above.   

131. Nor did Defendants comply with their further obligation to ascertain whether the 

child who lived in that apartment in 2018 continued to live there into 2019, even after the February 

15, 2019, deadline to do so had passed.  This violation of Local Law One’s obligations had serious 

consequences.  Nine months later, on October 2, 2019, HPD issued three violations for positive 

lead paint in that apartment as shown below:  

 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 36 of 63



35 

132. Between 2016 and 2021 there were multiple HPD violations placed for positive 

lead paint hazards across no less than 17 apartments in that building alone.  Approximately 15 

children residing in that building have been tested and found to have elevated blood-lead since 

2012. 

IV. At Least 130 Children Have Suffered Lead Poisoning in These Buildings 

133. Defendants’ widespread violation of the Lead Disclosure Rule, the RRP Rule, and 

the NYC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act puts their tenants at risk, exposing tenants, 

their visitors, and workers to lead dust and depriving tenants of information that would help them 

protect themselves and their children.   

134. Since 2012, blood tests performed on at least 130 children living in apartments 

controlled by Lieberman, Lilmor and the relevant LLC Defendants, and owned by Lieberman 

and/or the LLC Defendant, have shown elevated blood lead levels and had those results reported 

to DOHMH.  At least 14 of those test results occurred between January 1, 2022, and May 1, 2024, 

the latest information available to the Government. 

135. These numbers likely understate the number of poisoned children in Lilmor’s 

buildings.  Many children never receive tests for lead poisoning, even in New York where health 

care providers are required to test children for lead at one and two years of age.  See N.Y. Public 

Health Law § 67-1.2.  DOHMH has recently estimated that in New York City, 20% of three-year-

old children had never been tested, and half had not been tested at ages one and two, as required.  

Lower-income individuals who have reduced access to medical care may have particular 

challenges in obtaining testing on this schedule. 

136. The Government reviewed the DOHMH files for several instances in which 

DOHMH investigated apartments following the lead-poisoning of a child living in them, including 

by visually assessing the apartments for paint that was not intact or was subject to friction and 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 37 of 63



36 

taking paint samples for laboratory analysis for lead.  In every case, DOHMH inspectors identified 

lead hazards in the apartment. 

DEFENDANTS SUBJECT THEIR TENANTS TO UNSAFE AND UNSANITARY 
CONDITIONS; VIOLATE STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING LAW; AND MAINTAIN A 

PUBLIC NUISANCE  

137. Defendants have maintained unsafe and unsanitary conditions across the buildings 

they control, not just violating federal, state and local lead paint safety regulations, but also 

subjecting tenants to incessant leaks; pervasive mold; chronic heat outages; and infestations of 

roaches, mice, and rats, as well as other serious threats to their health and safety.  From 2012 to 

date, Defendants were cited for 15,680 hazardous or “B” violations and over 7,770 immediately 

hazardous or “C” violations of the NYC Housing Maintenance Code by HPD. 

138. In January of 2024, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office 

of the Inspector General (“HUD-OIG”) agents conducted inspections of a dozen units within the 

Lilmor portfolio and found numerous health and safety issues. 

139. For example, one tenant directed HUD-OIG to multiple issues in his apartment, 

including a water leak in his living room and mold growing over the bathroom window, pictured 

below: 

 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 38 of 63



37 

The tenant informed HUD-OIG that he had sent pictures of the mold to Lilmor six months earlier, 

but that it had yet to fix the problem. 

140. As another example, a tenant informed HUD-OIG agents that his apartment has 

faced continuous mold problems that Lilmor had once painted over, but that had recurred through 

the paint.  He also reported a leak from the upstairs unit and an extreme problem with mice, 

providing these pictures to substantiate his experience:   

 

141. The Government’s interviews with tenants confirmed that they routinely 

complained of the conditions in their apartments to Lilmor, but their complaints were often met 

without response or were remediated through temporary fixes that only exacerbated the unsafe and 

unsanitary living conditions in their apartments. 

142. For example, one tenant has lived in a Lilmor apartment for ten years with a 

crumbling ceiling in his closet caused by a long-existent leak.  His superintendent would 

occasionally come to plaster the damaged ceiling, but without addressing the root cause of the 

problem.  One night in 2020, his ceiling collapsed, sending a rush of water through the apartment.  

At that point, Lilmor finally sent a plumber to address the leak but, when the tenant spoke to 

Government investigators one month later, nothing had been done to fix the collapsed ceiling.  One 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 39 of 63



38 

of the tenants had to clean the fallen plaster from a closet floor themselves.  Lilmor knew from 

prior HPD violations that the paint in that closet was lead-based paint. 

143. Tenants with young children particularly susceptible to mold and lead paint fare no 

better under Lilmor’s management.  Tenants in one building who were interviewed by the 

Government grew concerned about peeling paint on their apartment door after the birth of their 

son and called both Lilmor and HPD.  Although Lilmor’s employees told the tenants not to worry 

about it, HPD inspectors identified peeling lead paint in several areas in the apartment.  The 

contractors hired by Lilmor to remediate the lead paint violations were unprofessional, according 

to the tenants’ account, and one of the tenants himself went out to purchase appropriate plastic 

sheeting to protect the work areas after researching the proper way to remediate lead-based paint.  

These tenants, too, had a ceiling collapse in one of their closets as water crashed through from a 

leaking pipe. 

144. Tenant complaints to Lilmor’s central office email account help highlight the full 

extent of Lilmor’s failures to ensure safe and sanitary conditions in tenants’ apartments.  In April 

2021, a tenant sent the following picture of peeling paint on a window to Lilmor’s email inbox: 

 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 40 of 6339 

145. She explained that she had “emailed before” about this issue and that although the 

superintendent “looked at it,” he “never came back to fix it [for] more than a month now!”   

146. The tenant explained her sentiment about her treatment in no uncertain terms:  “It’s 

very frustrating, I’m 6 months pregnant and I’ve been trying to get this fix before I go into labor. 

I don’t know if the paint that’s falling all on my curtains and floors have lead, I need it fixed 

ASAP! . . . When I email I get no response of what’s going to happen . . . I shouldn’t have to work 

months for repairs to be done.” 

147. Lilmor’s inbox is replete with similar complaints of unresponsive superintendents 

and delayed repairs.  For example, on May 6, 2020 at 3:03 P.M., a tenant emailed Lilmor to say 

“[i]t looks like the ceiling may collapse” due to a leak in the bathroom ceiling.  At 7:43 P.M., the 

tenant followed up, saying “[t]he ceiling has collapsed,” but that “[t]he super has told us that a 

plumber will be coming tomorrow morning to fix it.” 

148. But on June 9, 2020, the same tenant sent Lilmor the following picture: 

 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 41 of 63



40 

149. The tenant’s message to Lilmor was simple: “It has been over a month and no repair 

has been done. We have contacted the Super and nothing has been done. My family and I had to 

duck tape a plastic bag to stop debris from falling on our heads while using the bathroom. This is 

unacceptable and outrageous.” 

150. Some of the conditions faced by tenants shock the conscience.  In October of 2020, 

a tenant emailed Lilmor to request repairs to his apartment.  Lilmor scheduled a repair for 

December of 2020, but when the repair workers came, they only addressed some of the apartment’s 

issues, which the tenant informed Lilmor on January 1, 2021. 

151. In March, the tenant emailed Lilmor back with the subject line “URGENT!”  That 

email noted that “[t]he bedroom where [the tenant’s] 2 year-old son” sleeps “is also covered in 

mold on the ceiling that has gotten worst over time.”  The mold in question is pictured below: 

            

152. The tenants’ email—five months after he first contacted his landlord—ended with 

the following plea: “This is unfair and these repairs need to be addressed IMMEDIATELY before 

they get worse.” 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 42 of 63



41 

153. HUD-OIG inspections, tenant interviews, and Lilmor’s own work order database 

and email inbox establish that stories like those of the tenants discussed above are not isolated 

incidents within Lilmor’s portfolio—hundreds of tenants have been subjected to unsafe and 

unsanitary conditions, with no or inadequate responses from Lilmor.   

154. Between 2019 and the present, HPD issued thousands of violations for unsafe and 

unsanitary conditions within the 56 buildings that were owned or controlled by Defendants during 

this period.  Over 2,300 violations were issued related to rat, mice, and roach infestations.  Over 

1,400 were issued related to mold and over 1,400 violations were issued for water leaks.  Over 900 

were for lead-paint violations under City law.  And over 80 were issued where tenants had no heat.  

Defendants’ violation rate was so high during this period that Lieberman’s agent was declared 

New York City’s “Worst Landlord” in 2019 and 2020 by New York City’s Public Advocate, 

climbing from ninth worst in 2018.  

155.   Conditions were especially dire in a handful of Lilmor and Lieberman’s worst 

maintained buildings.  The buildings located at 192 Nagle Avenue, 200 Nagle Avenue, 1311 

Avenue K, 1435 Carroll Street, 575 Herkimer Street, and 1616 President Street each averaged over 

eight violations per unit between 2016 and 2021. 

156. Because the hazardous and immediately hazardous violation counts for mold and 

water leaks were so high in several buildings, those buildings were selected by HPD for mandatory 

participation in the “Underlying Conditions” program.  This program identifies approximately fifty 

to one hundred of the worst buildings citywide for these violation types in the year before selection 

that remain uncorrected.  In October 2019, Defendants’ buildings occupied six of those spots.6   

 
6 The six buildings that entered the Underlying Conditions program in October 2019 were 200 
Nagle Avenue, 3402 Avenue I, 776 Crown Street, 250 East 29th Street, 575 Herkimer Street, and 
271 Parkside Avenue. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 43 of 63



42 

157. The persistently poor condition of apartments in Lilmor’s portfolio results from 

Defendants’ complete failure to conduct any kind of preventive maintenance or even to proactively 

identify problems when they arise.  When interviewed by the Government in 2021, the Lilmor 

employee responsible for coordinating apartment repairs stated that “you can be proactive all you 

want, [but HPD is] going to issue violations.”  She continued: “We’re not looking for 

issues . . . We’re not going to check unless we have reason to check.” 

158. Defendant Morris Lieberman, who bears ultimate responsibility for the staffing and 

funding decisions that give rise to the unsafe and unsanitary conditions and who directly supervises 

the Lilmor personnel responsible for managing unit-by-unit repairs, is unmoved by the suffering 

of his tenants, as callously reflected in the email correspondence regarding 30 insufficient heat 

complaints from the winter of 2020, set forth below: 

 

159. Health and safety violations like leaks and mold persisted in Defendants portfolio 

in part because Defendants failed abysmally to address these indoor allergen triggers in any 

comprehensive manner, as required by Local Law 55.  Defendants took none of the legally required 

steps to (i) annually inspect all apartments for indoor allergen hazards, including for pests and 

mold and keep records of those inspections; (ii) properly remediate indoor allergen hazards using 

safe work practices as defined by the law; (iii) clean units at vacancy to ensure that they are free 

of pests and mold and using a HEPA vacuum where indicated; (iv) timely establish Integrated Pest 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 44 of 63



43 

Management plans, as required by law, in many buildings in the portfolio; or (v) provide a copy 

of the DOHMH Fact Sheet “What Tenants Should Know About Indoor Allergens” with all tenants’ 

initial and renewal leases. 

160. Additionally, the overall numbers of Housing Maintenance Code violations in 

Defendants’ buildings were high enough to land the buildings in another of HPD’s mandatory 

oversight programs, the Alternative Enforcement Program (“AEP”).  Based on their high violation 

count, HPD selects approximately 200 buildings citywide on January 31st of each year to 

participate.  The selected buildings undergo frequent inspections to monitor correction of 

violations and if the owner fails to act, HPD will make the repairs and bill the owner.  Between 

2019 and 2022, ten of Defendants’ buildings were required to participate in the AEP program.7 

DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS 
PRACTICES 

161. In addition to the repeated and persistent violations of laws governing lead-based 

paint and housing conditions, Defendants have engaged in deceptive and fraudulent business 

practices in violation of NYS GBL § 349 by (1) their complete failure to establish proper policies 

and practices for addressing lead-based paint hazards, including their use of uncertified workers 

to perform renovations of actual or presumed lead paint; (2) their persistent failure to disclose 

known lead paint hazards to new and existing tenants; (3) their failure to sign required 

certifications with initial and renewal leases that lead paint inspection and remediation work has 

been properly done in the units they lease; and (4) their chronic misrepresentation of the 

habitability of the apartments they lease to the public.   

 
7 192 Nagle Avenue, 200 Nagle Avenue, 250 East 29th Street, 251 East 29th Street, 1439 Ocean 
Avenue, 3402 Avenue I, 776 Crown Street, 575 Herkimer Street, 271 Parkside Avenue, and 1616 
President Street. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 45 of 63



44 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT ONE: LEAD DISCLOSURE RULE  
(ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES) 

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 
 

162. The United States repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 161. 

163. The United States brings this count on behalf of EPA and HUD. 

164. Morris Lieberman is a lessor within the meaning of the Lead Disclosure Rule, either 

directly or through his control of alter egos and agents.  Each of the LLC Defendants is also a 

lessor within the meaning of the Lead Disclosure Rule. 

165. Lilmor is an agent of a lessor within the meaning of the Lead Disclosure Rule.  

166. Morris Lieberman is a corporate officer of Lilmor and most of the LLC Defendants.  

He had the authority to cause, and was responsible for causing, those entities to comply with the 

Lead Disclosure Rule.  

167. Between 2012 and the present, Defendants have systematically violated the Lead 

Disclosure Rule.  They will continue to violate the Lead Disclosure Rule absent injunctive relief. 

168. These violations of the Lead Disclosure Rule threaten irreparable harm to the health 

and safety of children and others living in Lilmor’s buildings and frequent visitors to these 

buildings.   

169. Violation of the Lead Disclosure Rule is a “prohibited act” under and a violation of 

TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2689, as well as a violation of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, Title X (“Title X”), 42 U.S.C. § 4852d. 

170. Section 17(a) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2616(a), provides federal district courts with 

jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Section 409 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2689, and Title X 

authorizes the Secretary of HUD to seek an injunction of violations of the Lead Disclosure Rule, 

42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(2). 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 46 of 63



45 

171. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their violations of the Lead 

Disclosure Rule, TSCA, and Title X, which unjust profits fund further violations by Defendants. 

172. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2616(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 4852d(b)(2), the Court should 

issue an order (i) enjoining Defendants to comply with the Lead Disclosure Rule going forward; 

(ii) directing Defendants to provide remedial disclosures to tenants and former tenants who have 

not previously received proper disclosure, (iii) directing Defendants to take specified steps to 

mitigate harm to tenants or others from prior violations, and (iv) requiring Defendants to disgorge 

unjust profits that they have received in connection with their violations of the Lead Disclosure 

Rule, to the extent authorized by law.  The Court should award other appropriate equitable relief, 

including appointment of a special master, monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or 

appropriate to ensure compliance. 

COUNT TWO: RRP RULE  
(ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES) 

 (AGAINST MORRIS LIEBERMAN AND LILMOR) 
 

173. The United States repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 172. 

174. The United States brings this count on behalf of EPA. 

175. Lilmor is a “firm” “performing renovations” “for compensation” in “target 

housing” within the meaning of the RRP Rule.   

176. Lieberman, who directs and oversees this work in violation of the RRP Rule, is a 

“firm” “performing renovations” “for compensation” in “target housing” within the meaning of 

the RRP Rule through his control of Lilmor with respect to compliance with the RRP Rule.  He is 

also a responsible corporate officer of Lilmor and its alter egos. 

177. Lieberman had the authority to cause, and was responsible for causing, Lilmor and 

its agents and alter egos to comply with the RRP Rule. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 47 of 63



46 

178. Between 2012 and the present, Lieberman and Lilmor have systematically violated 

the RRP Rule. 

179. Lieberman and Lilmor will continue to violate the RRP Rule absent injunctive 

relief. 

180. These ongoing violations of the RRP Rule threaten irreparable harm to the health 

and safety of children, others living in Lilmor’s buildings, visitors to these buildings, and workers 

in these buildings.   

181. Lieberman and Lilmor have obtained unjust profits from their violations of the RRP 

Rule, which profits fund further violations by Defendants. 

182. Violation of the RRP Rule is a “prohibited act” under and violation of TSCA, 15 

U.S.C. § 2689.  

183. Section 17(a) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2616(a), provides federal district courts with 

jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Section 409 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2689. 

184. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2616(a), the Court should issue an order (i) enjoining 

Lieberman and Lilmor to comply with the RRP Rule going forward; (ii) ordering them to take 

specified steps to mitigate harm to tenants or others from prior violations; and (iii) requiring them 

to disgorge unjust profits that they have received in connection with their violations of the RRP 

Rule, to the extent authorized by law.  The Court should award other appropriate equitable relief, 

including appointment of a special master, monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or 

appropriate to ensure compliance. 

COUNT THREE: REPEATED AND PERSISTENT VIOLATION OF 
 STATE/LOCAL LEAD-BASED PAINT LAW UNDER EXECUTIVE LAW § 63(12)  

(ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK) 
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

 
185. The State repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 to 184. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 48 of 63



47 

186. Defendants are persons engaged in carrying on, conducting, or transaction of 

business for purposes of Executive Law § 63(12). 

187. Defendants are “owners” of the residential buildings and apartments they manage 

and/or own because they are either an “agent” and/or a “corporation” that is “directly or indirectly 

in control” of those buildings and apartments. See NYC Admin. Code § 27-2004(45). 

188. Defendants repeatedly and persistently violated multiple provisions of the NYC 

Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (Local Law One of 2004) NYC Admin. Code § 27-

2017 et seq. by failing to:  

• Annually investigate whether a child under six years resides in an apartment where the 
landlord was unable make the determination through annual inquiry. 
 

• Annually investigate for peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deteriorated sub surfaces, 
friction surfaces, and impact surfaces in multi-family buildings where a child under six 
years lives including in apartments for which Defendants had actual notice that a child 
under six resided in the apartment; 
 

• Notify tenants in writing of the results of those investigations.  
 

• Safely and expeditiously remediate and abate all lead-based paint hazards and underlying 
defects using proper work methods.   

 
• Take remedial measures to address lead-based paint hazards on the turnover of tenants in 

a building constructed prior to 1960. 
 
189. Defendants, who participated in the conduct and had knowledge of the facts and 

events herein, have persistently violated the NYC Childhood Lead Paint Poisoning Act 

constituting repeated illegality under Executive Law § 63(12).  They will continue to violate Local 

Law One absent injunctive relief.  These ongoing violations  caused and threaten harm to the health 

and safety of children and others residing in Defendants’ buildings and frequent visitors to the 

buildings. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 49 of 63



48 

190. Defendants are liable, pursuant to the New York Attorney General’s Executive Law 

§ 63(12) authority, for injunctive relief, for civil penalties for violations related to lead paint 

conditions and recordkeeping pursuant to NYC Admin Code § 27-2115(a), as well as for an 

additional civil penalty of up to $1,500.00 for each violation of NYC Admin Code § 27-2056.4 

and § 27-2056.8.   

191. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their violations of Local Law One 

and the Attorney General seeks  disgorgement of the monies Defendants received in connection 

with their violations of Local Law One.  The Court should award other appropriate equitable relief, 

including appointment of a special master, monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or 

appropriate to ensure compliance. 

COUNT FOUR: VIOLATIONS OF STATE/LOCAL HOUSING LAW UNDER 
EXECUTIVE LAW § 63(12) 

(ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK) 
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

 
192. The State repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 191. 

193. Defendants are persons engaged in the carrying on, conducting, or transaction of 

business for purposes of Executive Law § 63(12). 

194. Defendants are “owners” of the residential buildings and apartments they manage 

and/or own because they are either an “agent” and/or a “corporation” that is “directly or indirectly 

in control” of those buildings and apartments.  See NYC Admin. Code § 27-2004(45). 

195. Defendants repeatedly and persistently violated  the Warranty of Habitability of the 

apartments they leased which is guaranteed by NYS RPL § 235-b and for which the obligation to 

repair is set out in NYS MDL §78.  Defendants also repeatedly and persistently violated housing 

standards set out in the NYC HMC (Admin. Code of the City of NY, tit. 27, ch. 2, subch. 2, § 27-

2001 et seq. and including but not limited to Admin. Code of the City of NY, tit. 27, ch. 2, subch. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 50 of 63



49 

2, Art. 4 Control of Pests and Other Asthma Triggers, § 27-2017-2019).  These violations 

constitute repeated illegality under Executive Law § 63(12). 

196. Defendants have violated and continue to violate the state and local housing law 

and code.  They will continue to violate these laws absent injunctive relief. 

197. These ongoing violations of the state and local housing law and code have caused 

and threaten harm to the health and safety of children and others residing in Lilmor’s buildings 

and frequent visitors to these buildings.   

198. Defendants are liable for injunctive relief of total remediation and repair of all open 

violations of record and substandard conditions as well as for remediation of any indoor allergen 

triggers and compliance with inspection and notice requirements of the Asthma Free Housing Act.   

199. Defendants are liable for restitution to the former and current tenants and occupants 

of the dwellings they own and manage under Executive Law § 63(12). 

200. Defendants are liable for damages pursuant to their breach of the Warranty of 

Habitability  

201. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their violations of the state and local 

housing laws and codes, which unjust profits fund further violations by Defendants. 

202. The Attorney General  seeks disgorgement of the monies Defendants received in 

connection with their violations of state and local housing law and code as equitable relief..   

203. Defendants are also liable for civil penalties that accrued for HPD violation 

issuance as well as daily penalties accruing for both open and closed HPD violations.   

204. The Court should award other appropriate equitable relief, including appointment 

of a special master, monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or appropriate to ensure 

compliance. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 51 of 63



50 

COUNT FIVE: VIOLATION OF  
NYS GENERAL BUSINESS LAW  
(ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK) 
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

 
205. The State repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 204. 

206. GBL § 349(a) prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any 

business, trade or commerce.”  Defendants’ failure to certify compliance with the turnover 

requirements of the NYC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act when entering into hundreds, 

if not thousands of lease and renewal lease agreements with their tenants was a fraudulent and 

deceptive business practice which would mislead a reasonable tenant into believing that 

Defendants either complied with the turnover requirements of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Act 

or that lead-based paint hazards were not present.  These false certifications  violate GBL § 349(a).   

Additionally, Defendants’ false representations that hundreds of apartments or more in their 

portfolio are habitable, when they are not, constitutes a deceptive business practice. 

207. Defendants have violated General Business Law § 349(a) by their actions and 

omissions and will continue to violate the General Business Law absent injunctive relief. 

208. These deceptive business practices have caused and threaten  harm to the health 

and safety of children and others residing in Defendants’ buildings.   

209. Defendants are liable for restitution to the former and current tenants and occupants 

of the dwellings they own and manage for their violations of GBL § 349(a). 

210. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their violations of the General 

Business Law § 349(a), which unjust profits fund further violations by Defendants. 

211. The Attorney General seeks disgorgement of the monies Defendants received in 

connection with their violations of GBL § 349(a).   

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 52 of 63



51 

212. Defendants are also liable for civil penalties, pursuant to GBL §§ 349, 350-(d), of 

up to $5,000 per violation or $10,000.00 pursuant to GBL § 349-c(2) for fraudulent conduct 

perpetrated against one of more elderly persons. 

213. The Court should award other appropriate equitable relief, including appointment 

of a special master, monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or appropriate to ensure 

compliance. 

COUNT SIX: PUBLIC NUISANCE 
(ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES) 

(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 
 

214. The United States repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 213. 

215. Defendants, directly and through agents, have and continue to substantially and 

unreasonably interfere with the public health, the public safety, the public comfort, and the public 

convenience including, in particular, the health and welfare of thousands of past, present, and 

future tenants of Defendants’ buildings. 

216. This interference is continuous and longstanding and involves repeated violations 

of federal, state, and local law. 

217. Defendants knew or should have known that the conduct at issue significantly 

affects the public health. 

218. Defendants’ conduct, which affects interstate commerce and implicates significant 

federal interests, including but not limited to the United States’ interests in promoting decent and 

affordable housing; the United States’ interest in preventing conduct or conditions proximate to 

federally subsidized units from impacting conditions in those units; and the United States’ interest 

in avoiding additional costs caused by the public nuisance, including increased costs to federal 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 53 of 63



52 

health care programs from the adverse impact of the conditions on the health of individuals insured 

by federal health care programs. 

219. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their maintenance of the public 

nuisance, which fund further violations by Defendants. 

220. Pursuant to the common law of nuisance, the Court should issue an order 

(i) enjoining Defendants to correct living conditions in the buildings that constitute a public 

nuisance; (ii) directing Defendants to mitigate prior injuries resulting from the public nuisance; 

and (iii) directing Defendants to disgorge their unjust profits, to the extent authorized by law.  The 

Court should award other appropriate equitable relief, including appointment of a special master, 

monitor, or receiver, to the extent necessary or appropriate to ensure compliance. 

COUNT SEVEN: PUBLIC NUISANCE 
(ON BEHALF OF NEW YORK) 
(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 

221. The State repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 220. 

222. Defendants’ intentional conduct in maintaining, or permitting the existence of 

conditions conducive to lead poisoning, mold and pest infestation and other conditions hazardous 

to safety and health around Defendants’ properties is a public nuisance under state and local law.  

NY CLS Mult D §309 (1)(a); NYC Admin. Code § 17-142.  

223. The People of the State of New York, the counties in which the buildings are 

located, and the City of New York have a common right to be free from the detrimental effects of 

lead in, on and around Defendants’ residential rental properties.  By allowing these conditions to 

proliferate across its 56 multi-family rental properties in New York City over a period of more 

than ten years, Defendants have created and contributed to a public nuisance on a community-wide 

scale. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 54 of 63



53 

224. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, conditions conducive to 

lead poisoning, mold and pest infestations also leading to the exacerbation of indoor allergen 

conditions, as well as other conditions that are dangerous to health and safety are present in, on 

and around Defendants’ properties and over 2,500 units of housing.   

225. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, the City of New York and 

State of New York have incurred and will continue to incur substantial expenses from the presence 

of conditions conducive to lead poisoning and asthma in, on and around Defendants’ properties, 

including but not limited to costs of monitoring for and treating children suffering from lead 

poisoning and asthma; addressing the special educational needs of children with lead poisoning 

and enforcing the law. 

226. Defendants have violated and continue to violate the Nuisance Abatement Law and 

have created and maintained a common law nuisance.  They will continue to violate the law and 

maintain a nuisance absent injunctive relief. 

227. Defendants ongoing public nuisance has caused and threatened  harm to the health 

and safety of children and others residing in Defendants’ buildings, to frequent visitors to these 

buildings and to the surrounding community.   

228. The Attorney General is authorized under Executive Law § 63(12) and pursuant to 

NYC Admin Code § 7-706(a) and § 7-714 and the Attorney General’s parens patriae power, to 

bring an action to enjoin Defendants’ public nuisance.  Defendants are also liable pursuant to 

Section 7-706(h) of the Nuisance Abatement Law for a civil penalty in an amount up to one 

thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day that the nuisance occurred. 

229. Defendants have obtained unjust profits from their maintenance of the public 

nuisance, which fund further violations by Defendants. 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 55 of 63



54 

230. The Attorney General is seeking disgorgement of the monies Defendants received 

in connection with their violations of the public nuisance laws.   

231. The Court should enjoin Defendants’ nuisance conduct, award other appropriate 

equitable relief, including appointment of a special master, monitor, receiver, or temporary 

receiver pursuant to NYC Admin Code  §7-713, to the extent necessary or appropriate to ensure 

compliance. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, on Counts One, Two, and Six, the United States respectfully requests that 
the Court: 
 

(i) Enjoin Defendants to comply with the Lead Disclosure Rule, make remedial 
disclosures, mitigate the effect of past violations, and disgorge unjust profits 
resulting from such violations, to the extent authorized by law; 
 

(ii) Enjoin Lilmor and Lieberman to comply with the RRP Rule, mitigate the 
effect of past violations, and disgorge unjust profits resulting from such 
violations, to the extent authorized by law; 
 

(iii) Enjoin Defendants to correct living conditions in the buildings that 
constitute a public nuisance, mitigate prior injuries resulting from the public 
nuisance, and disgorge unjust profits, to the extent authorized by law;  

 
(iv) Award other appropriate equitable relief, including appointment of a special 

master, monitor, or receiver to the extent necessary or appropriate to ensure 
compliance; and 
 

(v) Order such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 
 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 56 of 63



55 

 And WHEREFORE, on Counts Three, Four, Five, and Seven, the People of the State of 
New York respectfully request that the Court: 
 

(i) Order Defendants to inspect, within 30 days of the judgment, through a 
qualified third party inspector, each dwelling unit and common areas of 
each residence they now own or control or in the future own or manage in 
New York for lead paint hazards and conditions conducive to lead 
poisoning.  Further direct Defendants to remedy all such conditions in 
compliance with Local Law One and all other local, state and federal laws 
within 30 days of such inspection or sooner as required by law; 
 

(ii) Order Defendants to comply with Local Law One requirements for 
certification of lead paint turnover work and annual inquiry and 
investigation of children under 6 years residing in dwelling units under their 
ownership and control, and retain records of the result of their 
investigations; 

 
(iii) Order Defendants to inspect for and correct, within 30 days of the judgment 

or sooner as required by law, each dwelling unit and common areas of each 
residence they now own or control or in the future own or manage in New 
York for conditions, including but not limited to indoor allergen conditions, 
that constitute violations of the NYC HMC and/or constitute a public 
nuisance;  

 
(iv) Order Defendants to follow the direction of a special master, monitor, or 

receiver to be appointed by the Court at Defendants’ expense and file 
compliance reports to that monitor and the Plaintiffs; 

 
(v) Permanently enjoin Defendants from further illegal acts relating to the 

claims enumerated in the complaint herein; 
 

(vi) Order disgorgement of all profits Defendants have realized from their 
repeated and persistent violations of law and fraud in carrying out their 
residential property leasing and management business; 

 
(vii) Order Defendants to pay restitution to current and former tenants and 

occupants for their repeated and persistent violations of law and fraud in 
carrying out their residential property leasing and management business; 

 
(viii) Award civil penalties, in an amount to be determined at trial, for Defendants 

violations of the NYC Housing Maintenance Code and the NY General 
Business Law; 

 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 57 of 63



56 

(ix) Award damages for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs; 
 

(x) Award Plaintiffs costs and disbursements 
 

(xi) Order Defendants to pay all additional allowances authorized by CPLR 
§ 8803.  

 
(xii) Retain jurisdiction over this matter until Defendants have fully complied 

with their obligations to inspect and remedy all existing conditions that 
threaten health and safety at the buildings they own or manage; 
 

(xiii) Award other appropriate equitable relief,  to the extent necessary or 
appropriate to ensure compliance; and 
 

(xiv) Order such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 
  

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 58 of 63



57 

 

Dated: December 13, 2024     
New York, New York    DAMIAN WILLIAMS 

United States Attorney for the 
Southern District of New York 
Attorney for the United States 
(As to Counts One, Two, and Six) 
 
             
ZACHARY BANNON 
JACOB LILLYWHITE 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor  
New York, New York 10007 
(212) 637-2728/2639  
[email protected] 
[email protected] 

 
OF COUNSEL: 
 
Jeannie Yu 
Assistant Regional Counsel 
Naomi Shapiro  
Associate Regional Counsel 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II 
 
Lee Ann Richardson 
Acting Assistant General Counsel 
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development 
  

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 59 of 63



Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 60 of 6359 

Exhibit A 
 

Building Previously Managed 
by Lilmor and/or Controlled 

by Lieberman 

Building Currently 
Managed by Lilmor and/or 
Controlled by Lieberman 

LLC Defendant Associated 
with Building 

192-198 Nagle Avenue, New 
York, NY 10034   

200-208 Nagle Avenue, New 
York, NY 10034   

776 Crown Street, Brooklyn, NY 
11213   

200 East 19th Street, Brooklyn, 
NY 11226   

271 Parkside Avenue, Brooklyn, 
NY 1122   

1616 President Street, Brooklyn, 
NY 11213   

575 Herkimer Street, Brooklyn, 
NY 11213   

354 East 21st Street, Brooklyn, 
NY 11226  354 E 21th Street Realty 

Corp. 
2077 East 12th Street, Brooklyn, 

NY  11229  P Bigg Realty LLC 

 45 Hawthorne Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11225 45-55 Realty LLC 

 55 Winthrop Street, Brooklyn, 
NY 11225 55 Winthrop St LLC 

 130 Clarkson Avenue, 
Brooklyn, NY 11226 130 Clarkson Realty LLC 

 250 East 29th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11226 250-251 E 29 Realty LLC 

 251 East 29th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11226 251 E 29 St LLC 

 1590 West 8th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11204 1590 W 8 St LLC 

 105 Avenue P, Brooklyn, NY 
11204 105 Ave P Realty LLC 

 888 Montgomery Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11213 888 Realty LLC 

 100 Linden Blvd, Brooklyn, 
NY 11226 100 Linden Realty LLC 

 
131 Lincoln Road, Brooklyn, 

NY 11225 131 Realty LLC 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 61 of 63



60 

Building Previously Managed 
by Lilmor and/or Controlled 

by Lieberman 

Building Currently 
Managed by Lilmor and/or 
Controlled by Lieberman 

LLC Defendant Associated 
with Building 

 
1629 West 10th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11223 C & Z Realty LLC 

 
2003 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 

11210 2003 Realty LLC 

 
1429 Carroll Street, Brooklyn, 

NY 11213 1429 Carroll Street LLC 

 
59 Logan Street, Brooklyn, 

NY 11208 59 Logan St LLC 

 
1269 East 18th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11230 1269 E 18 Street Realty LLC 

 
334 Eastern Parkway, 
Brooklyn, NY 11225 334 Eastern Pkwy Realty LLC 

 
840 East 17th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11230 840 Realty LLC 

 
1909 Quentin Road, 
Brooklyn, NY 11229 1909 Realty LLC 

 
333 Neptune Avenue, 
Brooklyn, NY 11235 333 Realty LLC 

 
1690 President Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11213 1690 President Street LLC 

 
645 Ocean Parkway, 
Brooklyn, NY 11230 645 Realty LLC 

 
3402 Avenue I, Brooklyn, NY 

11210 3402 Realty LLC 

 
1439 Ocean Avenue, 
Brooklyn, NY 11230 1439 Realty LLC 

 
103-35 120th Street, 

Richmond Hill, NY 11419 103-35 120 St Realty LLC 

 
20-30 Merle Place, Staten 

Island, NY 10305 20-30 Merle Realty LLC 

 
1921 Avenue I, Brooklyn, NY 

11230 1921 Realty LLC 

 
410 Westminster Road, 
Brooklyn, NY 11218 410 Westminster LLC 

 
585 East 16th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11226 580-585 Realty LLC 

 
580 East 17th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11226  

 
2251 81st Street, Brooklyn, 

NY 11214 2251 Realty LLC 

 
209 East 16th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11226 209 Realty LLC 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 62 of 63



61 

Building Previously Managed 
by Lilmor and/or Controlled 

by Lieberman 

Building Currently 
Managed by Lilmor and/or 
Controlled by Lieberman 

LLC Defendant Associated 
with Building 

 
40-71 Elbertson Street, 
Elmhurst, NY 11373 40-71 Realty LLC 

 
712 East 27th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11210 712 Realty LLC 

 
723 East 27th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11210 723 Realty LLC 

 
2420 Glenwood Road, 
Brooklyn, NY 11210 2420 Realty LLC 

 
1684 West 10th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11223 1684 Realty LLC 

 
1660 East 21st Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11210 1660 Realty LLC 

 
1011 Neilson Street, Far 
Rockaway, NY 11691 1011 Neilson Realty LLC 

 
1012 Nameoke Street, Far 

Rockaway, NY 11691 1012 Nameoke Realty LLC 

 
1633 West 10th Street, 
Brooklyn, NY 11223 1633 West 10th Realty LLC 

 
1902 Avenue L, Brooklyn, 

NY 11230 Alit Realty LLC 

 
1301 Avenue K, Brooklyn, 

NY 11230 1301 Avenue K Realty LLC 

 
1311 Avenue K, Brooklyn, 

NY 11230 1311 Avenue K Realty LLC 

 
1173 52nd Street, Brooklyn, 

NY 11219 
E&S Realty Management 

LLC 

 
915 84th Street, Brooklyn, 

NY 11228 915 84th Street LLC 

 
2001 Avenue P, Brooklyn, 

NY 11229 2001 Avenue P LLC 

 
2065 Ocean Avenue, 
Brooklyn, NY 11230 2065 Ocean Avenue LLC 

 

Case 1:24-cv-09520     Document 1     Filed 12/13/24     Page 63 of 63