Free New York Lead Paint Disclosure

A New York lead paint disclosure is the federally mandated form a landlord delivers to a prospective tenant before any lease of residential property built before 1978. It carries the fixed federal lead warning statement, states the lessor’s actual knowledge of lead-based paint and hazards, lists the records being handed over, documents the tenant’s receipt of the EPA pamphlet Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home, captures any agent’s acknowledgment, and is signed and dated by every party. Authority is 42 U.S.C. 4852d (Section 1018 of Title X, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992), implemented at 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart F (EPA) and 24 CFR Part 35 Subpart A (HUD). New York layers two more regimes on top, and the single most important thing to understand about them is that neither one covers the whole state: New York City Local Law 1 of 2004 is a city ordinance that stops at the city line, and the state lead rental registry at N.Y. Pub. Health Law 1377 expressly excludes cities of a million or more, which means it excludes New York City. Generate the form below, then read on for exactly which of the three layers is yours. For the condition-based duties disclosure does not address, see our New York habitability laws guide.

▶ Watch overview

New York lead paint disclosure overview

The lead paint disclosure — often called the Section 1018 disclosure, after the 1992 statute that created it — is the formal federal notice a New York landlord delivers to a prospective tenant for any residential property built before 1978. It does four things in one document.

First, it puts the tenant on notice of potential lead exposure through the lead warning statement, a fixed federal paragraph required by 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) that must be attached to or inserted into the lease. Second, it transmits the lessor’s actual knowledge of lead-based paint or hazards in the dwelling. Third, it lists and delivers the records and reports the lessor holds. Fourth, it documents the tenant’s receipt of the EPA pamphlet and captures the acknowledgments and signatures that make the document provable later.

What it is not is a New York form. There is no New York State lead paint disclosure statute that adds items to this document, and no New York City ordinance that changes what the federal disclosure must say. New York’s contribution sits alongside the disclosure — extra notices, an inspection regime, a registry — and we work through each of those below, with the section number for every duty, so you can tell what is actually yours.

Yes — but not the one you have been told about, and probably not the one that applies to you. This is the single most misreported question on the New York lead SERP, so it is worth being precise.

Search “New York lead law landlord” and you will get page after page describing annual notices, a February 15 deadline, turnover work, and XRF testing. Every one of those duties is real. Every one of them is New York City law. They come from Local Law 1 of 2004, codified at N.Y.C. Admin. Code 27-2056.1 and following inside the New York City Housing Maintenance Code. A landlord in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Utica, Binghamton, or Yonkers owes precisely none of it. Of the eleven ranking pages we measured for this page, eight discuss Local Law 1 and not one says plainly that it is a city ordinance.

Meanwhile the genuinely statewide lead program — the one that has actually been rolling out over the last two years — appeared on zero of those eleven pages. It is the state lead rental registry at N.Y. Pub. Health Law 1377, implemented by 10 NYCRR Subpart 67-5. And it runs in the opposite direction: it deliberately carves New York City out.

The three layers, and how to tell which are yours

So the useful question is not “what is New York’s lead law” but “which of the three am I in?” If your rental is a multiple dwelling in the five boroughs, read the New York landlord-tenant framework alongside the Local Law 1 sections below and ignore the registry. If it is a two-or-more-unit building built before 1980 anywhere else in the state, the registry sections are the ones that matter and Local Law 1 is somebody else’s problem. Everyone leasing pre-1978 housing anywhere in New York owes the federal disclosure regardless.

The lease disclosure is not free-form. 40 CFR 745.113(b) enumerates what must appear, and a document missing an element is a defective disclosure even if it looks complete. The lettering below is the rule’s own.

The whole rule hangs on one defined term. 40 CFR 745.103 says, verbatim:

Read the structure, because the structure is where the 2025 amendment changed the answer. As amended, the sentence is: except [ housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities ] or [ any 0-bedroom dwelling ] (unless a child under 6 resides or is expected to reside). There are two excepted categories joined by “or”, and the child parenthetical now sits at the end, governing both. It reaches the 0-bedroom limb as well as the first.

Original construction date controls. A brownstone built in 1910 and stripped to the studs in 2004 is still target housing, because it was still “constructed prior to 1978”. Renovation does not reset the clock; only the build year matters. Verify it against the certificate of occupancy, the tax assessment record, or the building permit — not against the tenant’s guess or the listing copy.

Why 1978, and why the 1978 you have heard about is a different date

The Consumer Product Safety Commission ban at 16 CFR 1303.1 covers paint manufactured after 27 February 1978. That is the historical reason 1978 matters, and it is a manufacturing date. It is not the legal test. The operative trigger is 745.103’s “constructed prior to 1978” — a construction date. Conflating the two produces confident, wrong answers about buildings finished in 1978 using paint bought in 1977. Use the construction date.

This is the highest-value correction on this page, and it turns on a date. Through 12 January 2025, a 0-bedroom dwelling was excluded from target housing outright — a studio was exempt no matter who lived there. Effective 13 January 2025, 40 CFR 745.103 was amended (89 FR 89416) to move the child parenthetical to the end of the definition, so it now reaches the 0-bedroom limb as well. Under current law a studio rented to a family with a child under six is subject to disclosure. Nearly every competing page, and most stale charts, still print the pre-2025 “categorically exempt” reading.

Under current law a 0-bedroom dwelling is not target housing only where no child under six resides or is expected to. Since the 2025 amendment the exclusion carries the same child condition as the elderly and disabled one: a studio occupied by a family with a two-year-old is target housing and the disclosure is owed. Both excepted categories now evaporate when a child under six is in the picture, because the parenthetical was moved to the end of the definition where it governs both. Before 13 January 2025 the 0-bedroom limb carried no child condition at all, which is the reading you will still find nearly everywhere.

The same section tells you what counts, verbatim:

Note the last clause: “rentals of individual rooms in residential dwellings.” Room rentals are 0-bedroom dwellings. In a state with as much room-share and SRO-style housing as New York, that is not an edge case — and it means a landlord letting a single furnished room in a 1920s house is outside the federal disclosure rule, provided no child under six resides or is expected there (the 2025 amendment attached that condition to the 0-bedroom limb). The functional test is architectural: is the living area separated from the sleeping area? If a wall and a door separate where you sleep from where you sit, it is a one-bedroom and the rule applies. If they are the same room, it is a 0-bedroom and the rule does not.

Separately from the target-housing definition, 40 CFR 745.101 lists exemptions from Subpart F. There are four, they are narrow, and — this matters — not one of them carries a child condition. The rule’s own words:

The practical reading for a New York landlord: the renewal exemption is real but fragile. If you obtained a lead report, learned of a hazard, received a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene order, or completed an XRF investigation since the original disclosure, new information has come into your possession and the exemption is gone. Because re-disclosing at renewal costs nothing and the exemption evaporates silently, re-disclosing at every renewal is the conservative practice. And in New York City it is close to moot anyway, because 27-2056.4(d)(1) independently requires the child-inquiry notice “at the signing of a lease, including a renewal lease.”

Delivering the signed form is only half of it. The lessee must also receive the federally approved lead hazard information pamphlet, Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home. The lead warning statement says so on its face, and item (d) on the form is the tenant’s acknowledgment that it happened.

Three practical points. First, the pamphlet must be delivered, not merely referenced — a URL in a lease rider is not delivery. Second, EPA reissues the pamphlet periodically; note in your file which edition you handed over and when. Third, the acknowledgment is the tenant’s statement, so it is initialled by the tenant at signing. It is not a box the landlord ticks in advance, and this generator will not let you.

The federal rule compels disclosure, not investigation. It does not require any landlord to test for lead-based paint, to hire a risk assessor, or to remove anything. If the unit has never been tested and you hold no reports, “no knowledge” is the honest, lawful, and correct answer.

What you may not do is check “no knowledge” while sitting on something. Knowledge is knowledge however you got it: a prior owner’s inspection report handed over at closing, an abatement record, a building-wide risk assessment, a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene order, an HPD violation, a prior tenant’s child with an elevated blood lead result. If it is in your possession or your actual knowledge, it goes on the form.

This is the most-copied error in the entire lead paint form category, and one of the eleven pages ranking on this SERP still carries it. Here is the regulation, verbatim, at 40 CFR 745.110(a):

Purchaser. Seller. Contract to purchase. The word “lessee” does not appear, and the statute behind it is scoped identically at 42 U.S.C. 4852d(a)(1)(C). The lease-disclosure elements at 40 CFR 745.113(b) contain no inspection item, and the received-or-waived statement at 40 CFR 745.113(a)(5) sits in the sales subsection.

So a New York tenant has no federal 10-day right to inspect for lead before signing. A landlord may offer an inspection window voluntarily — it is good practice, it costs nothing, and it can defuse a dispute before it starts — but it is a courtesy, not a compliance step, and it must never be printed on the disclosure as though the tenant were waiving a right. Doing so misrepresents federal law on a document every party certifies as accurate.

Complete the fields below to generate a federally compliant New York lead paint disclosure. The generated PDF reproduces the lead warning statement, the lessor’s disclosure items, the lessee’s acknowledgment items, the agent’s acknowledgment, and the certification of accuracy with signature and date lines for each party. It is the federal document; if you are in New York City you will attach the Local Law 1 lease notice and the child-inquiry rider alongside it, and those come from HPD and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, not from here.

Under 40 CFR 745.113(c), the lessor must retain the completed disclosure — or the lease containing it — for at least three years from the commencement of the leasing period. Keep the signed original, a note of which pamphlet edition was delivered, and copies of every record you handed over. In an EPA or HUD inquiry, the signed disclosure is not merely helpful evidence; it is essentially the whole defence. Landlords who “know they gave it” and cannot produce it lose.

The rule adds a limit on what that retention period means, and the exact words matter because they are often stretched. 40 CFR 745.113(c)(2) says the recordkeeping requirement “is not intended to place any limitations on civil suits under the Act, or to otherwise affect a lessee’s or purchaser’s rights under the civil penalty provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3).” That is a statement about what the retention rule does not limit. It is not a statement that the three-year period is irrelevant to a limitations defence, and pages that paraphrase it into “expiring the three years is not a defence” are putting words in the regulation’s mouth. Read it for what it says.

In New York City the retention obligation is longer and separate. N.Y.C. Admin. Code 27-2056.4(f) requires the owner to inform the occupant in writing of an investigation’s results, to provide a copy of any report received or generated, to retain a copy of each investigation report for ten years from the date of the report, to make it available to the department on request, and to transfer it to the owner’s successor in title. That last clause is the one that surprises buyers: lead records follow the building, and if you bought a pre-1960 NYC multiple dwelling you should have received a decade of investigation reports at closing. If you did not, you have a problem to solve before your first annual notice cycle, not after.

Electronic disclosure and signature are permitted under the E-SIGN Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001, and EPA has confirmed the disclosure rule accommodates them. EPA attaches conditions worth taking seriously: give a clear statement of the right to receive paper documents, explain the procedure to withdraw consent and its consequences, explain how to access and retain the electronic records, and obtain consent in a way that reasonably demonstrates the tenant can actually access the materials in the format used.

Two failure modes recur. A link is not delivery. Emailing a URL to a pamphlet, with no evidence the tenant opened anything, is thin. Attach the pamphlet, or hand it over. And the retention clock does not care about your inbox. The electronic record must be retained the same three years, in a form you can actually reproduce — which means exporting the executed PDF, not trusting that an e-signature vendor you may stop paying will still have it in 2029.

If your rental is a multiple dwelling in New York City, two Local Law 1 duties attach to the same envelope as the federal disclosure. Because the ranking pages are written from an enforcement or remediation angle, they bury the two duties that actually happen at lease signing. These are them.

1. The lease itself must carry a conspicuous notice — 27-2056.4(c)

The code’s words: “All leases offered to tenants or prospective tenants in such multiple dwellings must contain a notice, conspicuously set forth therein, which advises tenants of the obligations of the owner and tenant as set forth in this section. Such notice must be in a manner approved by the department, the content of which shall, at a minimum, be in English and Spanish. The owner of such multiple dwelling shall provide the occupant of such multiple dwelling with the pamphlet described in subdivision b of section 17-179 of this code.”

Three things follow. The notice goes in the lease, not in a folder handed over later. It must be conspicuous, which is a drafting standard rather than a formatting preference. And it must be in English and Spanish at a minimum, with the city pamphlet under 17-179(b) riding along — a city pamphlet additional to the EPA one. Delivering either does not discharge the other.

2. The child-inquiry notice at every signing, including renewals — 27-2056.4(d)(1)

The owner “shall provide to an occupant of a dwelling unit at the signing of a lease, including a renewal lease, if any, or upon any agreement to lease, or at the commencement of occupancy if there is no lease, a notice in English and Spanish, the form and content of which shall be approved by the department of health and mental hygiene, inquiring whether a child of applicable age resides or will reside therein. If there is a lease, such notice shall be included in such lease or be attached as a rider to such lease. Such notice shall be completed by the occupant at the time of such signing.”

Note the four triggers — a lease signing, a renewal lease signing, an agreement to lease, or commencement of occupancy where there is no lease — and note it must be completed by the occupant at signing, not posted after and chased. A NYC landlord renewing a lease who reasons “the federal renewal exemption at 745.101(d) applies, nothing to do” has just missed a city duty.

Under 27-2056.4(e)(1), the owner of a multiple dwelling erected before 1 January 1960 must, each year, present each unit’s occupant with a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene-approved notice, in English and Spanish, asking whether a child of applicable age resides there — “no earlier than January first and no later than January sixteenth.” Both walls of that window are real: early is as non-compliant as late.

Delivery is not free-form either. 27-2056.4(e)(2) permits exactly four methods: (i) first class mail addressed to the occupant; (ii) hand delivery; (iii) enclosure with the January rent bill, but only “if such rent bill is delivered after December fifteenth but no later than January sixteenth”; or (iv) delivery in conjunction with the annual window guard notice required under section 17-123.

That fourth option is what experienced New York City managers use, because the window guard notice already goes out on the same calendar to the same units asking a nearly identical question about the same children. If you are running that mailing anyway, our New York City window guard notice generator produces the companion document, and combining them is expressly authorised rather than merely tolerated.

The New York City trigger is a child under six. Six of the eleven ranking pages we measured say so, and they are right — but not one of them quotes a single provision, and the route to that answer is a two-step worth showing, because Local Law 1’s own text says seven. Read the Housing Maintenance Code alone and you will confidently cite the wrong age. Here is the provision that starts the chain, from N.Y.C. Admin. Code 27-2056.18, taken from the Housing Maintenance Code as published by the City of New York and corroborated against a second independent rendering:

Read what that does. Every operative section of Local Law 1 — the annual investigation at 27-2056.4(a), the presumption at 27-2056.5(a), the class C violation at 27-2056.6, the turnover duties at 27-2056.8 — is written around the phrase “child of applicable age”, not “child under six”. 27-2056.18 is where that phrase gets its content. Step one is the baseline it states: under seven. Step two is the delegation in the same sentence — the Board of Health may narrow it to under six, “but no lower” — and the Board of Health exercised that power. It is not a theoretical authority sitting unused.

The determination lives where 27-2056.18 says it would: in the New York City Health Code, amended by the Board of Health. Article 173’s definitions, at §173.14, provide:

HPD’s own Guide to Local Law #1 of 2004 Work Practices dates it: “As of October 1, 2006, the ‘applicable age’ of a child for purposes of compliance with some of the requirements of Local Law # 1 of 2004 has been changed from under age seven to under age six.” So the operative New York City trigger has been under six since 1 October 2006, and the “under six” shorthand the ranking pages use is correct — they simply never show why.

We got this wrong, and we are fixing it in public. An earlier version of this page argued the opposite: that under seven was the governing baseline, that a narrowing determination was unverified, and that landlords should run their compliance against seven. That was an error, and an instructive one — it read the delegation in 27-2056.18 and never checked whether the Board of Health had used it. It had, nearly twenty years earlier. Reading half a chain of authority produces a confidently-cited wrong answer, which is worse than no answer.

Two wrinkles we flag rather than paper over. First, 27-2056.18 lets the Board narrow the age “for the purposes of some or all of the provisions of this article,” and HPD’s guide echoes “some of the requirements”; the Health Code definition itself is written without that qualification, and HPD enforces on under six across the article. If you are unsure at the margin, treating a six-year-old as covered does more than the code asks, not less. Second, the Health Code definition cross-references “Article 13” of that subchapter, but the lead article is Article 14 (“Lead Poisoning Prevention and Control”); Article 13 is Janitorial Services and contains no such term. We read that as a stale cross-reference left from a renumbering rather than a live ambiguity, because Article 14 is the only article in that subchapter that uses the phrase at all.

One further definition is not in dispute, and it is narrower than people assume. 27-2056.2(12): “‘Resides’ shall mean to routinely spend 10 or more hours per week within a dwelling unit.” A grandchild there every weekend day may “reside” for Local Law 1 purposes without living there in any ordinary sense.

The lease-time duties above are what a landlord signs. These are what a landlord owes for as long as they hold the building — all of it New York City only.

Who is covered — 27-2056.4(a) and 27-2056.1

The annual investigation duty attaches to a unit in a multiple dwelling erected before 1 January 1960 where a child of applicable age resides; to a unit in a multiple dwelling erected on or after 1 January 1960 and before 1 January 1978 where such a child resides and the owner has actual knowledge of lead-based paint; and to the common areas of such multiple dwellings. The second tier is conjunctive: 1960–1977 buildings need both a child and actual knowledge. The investigation covers peeling paint, chewable surfaces, deteriorated subsurfaces, friction surfaces and impact surfaces, “at least once a year and more often if necessary”.

And note who counts as a “multiple dwelling”, because 27-2056.1 is broader than the phrase suggests: the term “includes a private dwelling where at least one dwelling unit within such dwelling is occupied by persons other than the owner of such dwelling or a member of such owner’s family,” while the article does not apply to the unit the owner or their family occupies. An owner living in one half of a pre-1960 two-family house in Queens and letting the other half is inside Local Law 1 for the let half.

The presumption — 27-2056.5

In any multiple dwelling erected before 1 January 1960, paint in a unit where a child of applicable age resides, or in the common areas, is presumed to be lead-based paint. The owner may rebut it only by submitting a sworn written statement supported by testing results, a sworn statement from whoever did the testing if they were the owner’s employee or agent, and whatever else the department requires — and the testing may only be performed by someone certified as an inspector or risk assessor under subparts L and Q of 40 CFR Part 745. The department decides whether the proof suffices.

Separately, 27-2056.5(b) lets an owner apply for an exemption where either an inspection under 40 CFR 745.227 found no lead-based paint, or substantial alterations removed or permanently covered all of it. An exemption is worth real money: sections 27-2056.4, 27-2056.8 and 27-2056.9 do not apply to an exempted dwelling or unit.

The XRF investigation — 27-2056.4(a-1), added by Local Law 31 of 2020

By the earliest of 9 August 2025, one year after a child of applicable age comes to reside in a covered unit, or the date required by a DOHMH order, one investigation must be performed by a person who is not the owner, the owner’s agent, or any contractor hired to do lead remediation, and who is certified as an inspector or risk assessor under 40 CFR 745.226. It must use an x-ray fluorescence analyzer on all types of surfaces per chapter 7 of the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing, covering chewable, friction and impact surfaces, in the unit and the common areas. It is not required where a compliant investigation was already done and the owner retains the records, or where the unit holds a 27-2056.5(b) exemption.

Turnover — 27-2056.8

This is the duty that catches owners between tenancies. Upon the earliest of (i) turnover of any unit in a pre-1960 multiple dwelling, (ii) 1 July 2027 for a pre-1960 unit where a child of applicable age resided as of 1 January 2025, or (iii) within three years after such a child begins to reside in an occupied pre-1960 unit before turnover, the owner must, within that unit: remediate all lead-based paint hazards and any underlying defects for each turnover; make all bare floors, window sills and window wells smooth and cleanable for each turnover; remove or permanently cover all lead-based paint on friction surfaces on all doors and door frames; and remove or permanently cover all lead-based paint on friction surfaces on all windows, or install replacement window channels or slides on those surfaces.

“Turnover” is defined at 27-2056.2(14) as “the occupancy of a dwelling unit subsequent to the termination of a tenancy and the vacatur by a prior tenant of such dwelling unit.” Work must follow the safe work practices promulgated under 27-2056.11, and failure is a class C immediately hazardous violation. Note limb (i) attaches to any turnover in a pre-1960 multiple dwelling — it does not wait for a child.

Separately, 27-2056.6 makes lead-based paint in a unit where such a child resides a class C immediately hazardous violation if it is peeling or on a deteriorated subsurface, and 27-2056.3 declares a lead-based paint hazard in any multiple dwelling where such a child resides to be “a condition dangerous to life and health,” requiring the owner to prevent its reasonably foreseeable occurrence and remediate expeditiously along with any underlying defect.

Now the regime nobody writes about. Not one of the eleven pages ranking for these queries mentions it. If you own rental property in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Utica, Poughkeepsie, Newburgh, Yonkers, or anywhere in New York outside the five boroughs, this — not Local Law 1 — is your New York lead regime.

What the statute says

N.Y. Pub. Health Law 1377(1) directs the Department of Health, in consultation with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, to develop a registry for all residential dwellings with two or more units built prior to 1980 which, by virtue of their property class designation, are potentially eligible for rental, and which are located within communities of concern as identified by the department — and then, in the sentence defining this regime’s geography: “Such registry shall only include qualifying residential dwellings outside a city with a population of one million people or more.”

Two details to hold onto. The build-date line is 1980, not the federal 1978 — so a 1979 duplex in a community of concern is outside the federal disclosure rule but inside the state registry. And the statute carries a legislative note stating that section 1377 is repealed 3 November 2028, a sunset the Legislature may or may not extend.

Where it applies: “communities of concern”

This is not statewide in practice. 10 NYCRR 67-5.2(d) defines a Community of Concern as “an area within the State which the New York State Department of Health has designated as having a disproportionately high prevalence of children with elevated blood lead levels, pursuant to the requirements of section 1370-a(3) of the Public Health Law.” Whether a given address sits inside one is a departmental determination. We deliberately publish no list — a stale list is worse than none. Check with the Department of Health or your local health department for the address in question. Covered owners should have been contacted: PHL 1377(2) requires written notice within sixty days of the registry’s effectiveness, and 1377(4) at least two further notices before a certification deadline, including how to tell the department a dwelling is not eligible for rental.

10 NYCRR 67-5.3 states the exclusions plainly: the Subpart applies to dwellings built prior to 1980 with two or more units in communities of concern, except (a) dwellings located in cities with a population of one million residents or more; (b) permitted temporary residences, campgrounds, mass gatherings and children’s camps; (c) correctional facilities, hospitals, medical facilities, nursing or convalescent homes and other custodial-care settings; (d) a multi-family dwelling used as a school or college dormitory owned by an approved academic institution; and (e) anything else the department reasonably determines is not implicated.

What a covered owner actually owes

There is an exemption path. Under 67-5.5(n) a unit may be exempted from inspection — never from registration — where it is determined free of lead-based paint by a surface-by-surface analyzer inspection and dust wipes confirmed by departmental audit; where lead-based paint has been abated by removal or replacement, similarly confirmed; or where the unit is not rented and is occupied by the owner or their immediate family, on a written attestation signed under penalty of perjury and re-submitted at least once every three years. Note what 67-5.7(d)(2)(iv) and (4)(ii) say about the first two: the department does not regard encapsulation or enclosure as permanent abatement warranting an inspection exemption, because both degrade or can be disturbed.

The registry’s tenant duties — 10 NYCRR 67-5.8

This is the part that belongs on a disclosure page, because it is a notice duty running from owner to tenant, separate from the federal disclosure and triggered by different facts:

• 67-5.8(a) — the owner “must provide written notification to tenants of all eligible dwellings that their rental unit is recorded in the rental registry and information on the status of said rental unit and education regarding lead safety for tenants.”
• 67-5.8(b) — where an inspection identifies lead-based paint hazards or visual lead soil hazards, tenants of affected units must receive a copy of the results within 24 hours of the owner receiving them.
• 67-5.8(c) — the owner must protect tenants from exposure during remediation; and where only some units were inspected, “it shall be presumed that the other units in the dwelling contain similar hazards” and those tenants notified too.
• 67-5.8(d) — once hazards are identified and the unit becomes vacant, it shall not be reoccupied until a lead safety certification is issued.
• 67-5.8(e)–(g) — the department may bar children and pregnant people from part or all of a dwelling during remediation, may require relocation to temporary housing at the owner’s cost, and may placard the premises as unfit for habitation until hazards are sufficiently remediated.
• 67-5.8(h) — anti-retaliation. It is unlawful for an owner, or anyone acting for an owner, to retaliate against a tenant who reports a suspected lead-based paint hazard to the owner, the department, or any municipal agency — the rule names rent increases, fines and non-renewals during remediation as examples.

That last one travels beyond the lead file: a retaliation finding can colour an eviction, a rent increase, or a non-renewal long after the paint is fixed. Enforcement runs through PHL sections 1375 and 1377 and the department’s hearing machinery under 67-5.9, which also lets the department bar a third-party inspector from the registry entirely if an audit shows their work failed to identify hazards accurately.

Three statewide provisions apply regardless of which side of the city line you are on, and none is a disclosure duty.

PHL 1372 — the application ban. Verbatim: “No person shall apply paint or other similar surface-coating material containing more than .06 of one per centum of metallic lead based on the total weight of the contained solids or dried paint film to any interior surface, window sill, window frame or porch of a dwelling.” This prohibits applying such paint today; it says nothing about paint already on the wall.

PHL 1373 — abatement in areas of high risk. Where the Commissioner of Health designates an “area of high risk” — defined at PHL 1370(2) as one or more dwellings in which a condition conducive to lead poisoning of children is present — the commissioner issues a written notice and demand for discontinuance within a specified period, prescribing the method. Failure leads to enforcement, a formal hearing, and a possible abatement order and penalty. 1373(5) closes the obvious loophole: a tenant moving out or surrendering the unit does not relieve anyone of the obligation to fix it. Note the structure — this is triggered by a government designation and notice, not a standing duty every landlord owes.

Real Prop. Law 235-b — the warranty of habitability. The one that reaches every New York rental and does not care about build years, city lines, or communities of concern. Deteriorated lead paint where young children live is a condition-based defect supporting a rent-abatement claim, a defence to a non-payment proceeding, or an affirmative habitability action — entirely independently of whether you handed over a perfect federal disclosure. A landlord who disclosed correctly and then let the paint fail has complied with Subpart F and breached 235-b. Our guide to the New York warranty of habitability covers that side.

Everything above concerns leasing. Renovation is a different rule with a different trigger. Under the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting rule at 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart E, a renovation disturbing painted surfaces in a pre-1978 unit must be performed by a certified firm using lead-safe work practices, and occupants must receive lead hazard information no more than 60 days before work begins. Where common areas are affected, notice describing the nature, location and expected dates of the work must reach every unit.

Two New York interactions. In New York City, work under 27-2056.8 and 27-2056.3 must follow the safe work practices promulgated under 27-2056.11 — a city standard on top of the federal one. Outside the city, 10 NYCRR 67-5.7(c) prescribes lead-safe work practices in detail for registry properties, down to six-mil plastic sheeting, daily wet clean-up, and a final clean-up no less than two hours after abatement ends involving HEPA vacuuming, wet mopping, then a second HEPA vacuuming — and 67-5.7(c)(2) makes the owner responsible for ensuring anyone doing the work holds the certifications every applicable law requires.

The overlap that catches people: a renovation generates knowledge. Disturb paint, test it, and whatever comes back is now something you know — and must disclose to the next tenant on the form above.

This page prints no dollar figure for federal civil penalties. That is deliberate, and it is a correction: an earlier version of this page named a specific maximum per violation, in its prose and again in its statute table. That figure was stale when it was typed, and any figure we replaced it with would be stale by the time you read this. Printing one is how a wrong number gets laundered into a hundred other pages.

The mechanism does not go stale. Federal civil monetary penalties are adjusted for inflation every year under the schedule at 40 CFR 19.4. That table — not a blog, not this page — is the authority for what a violation costs today.

Separately, the statute creates private liability, and this is the exposure that actually ends landlords. Under 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3), anyone who knowingly violates the section is jointly and severally liable to the lessee for three times the amount of damages incurred; under (b)(4) the court may award court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and expert witness fees. Treble damages plus fees, where the underlying damages are a child’s neurological injury, is not a fine — it is a solvency event. And 40 CFR 745.113(c)(2) is explicit that the recordkeeping rule “is not intended to place any limitations on civil suits under the Act, or to otherwise affect a lessee’s or purchaser’s rights under the civil penalty provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3).”

In New York City, 27-2056.4(g) makes a violation of that section a misdemeanor and separately subjects the owner to a civil penalty per violation — read the section itself for the figures rather than a secondary source, since the per-violation-per-day range an earlier version of this page quoted did not match the code text we verified. Beyond that, peeling lead-based paint or paint on a deteriorated subsurface where a child of applicable age resides is a class C immediately hazardous violation under 27-2056.6, as is a turnover failure under 27-2056.8(c). Outside New York City, PHL 1377(10) subjects a failure to file, or a false certificate, to civil penalties under PHL section 12, and 10 NYCRR 67-5.9(b) lets the commissioner act where fraudulent information reaches the registry.

EPA and HUD share federal enforcement. Cases rarely start with an audit; they start with a complaint, a child’s elevated blood lead result referred by a health department, or a portfolio review after one property surfaces. The first request is always the same: produce the signed disclosures. Landlords who cannot are no longer arguing about the merits.

HPD and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene enforce Local Law 1 in New York City — and 27-2056.4(h) expressly lets the department perform sample audits of compliance with the notice and investigation section. DOHMH usually arrives through the blood-lead route: a child’s elevated result triggers an environmental investigation and can produce an order to abate, which is itself a trigger for the 27-2056.4(a-1) XRF investigation.

The New York State Department of Health and its designated representatives run the registry outside the city, auditing at least ten percent of certification inspections annually and in person under PHL 1377(5). Because 10 NYCRR 67-5.2(f) defines “designated representative” to include the health commissioner of a city of 50,000 or more or of a county health district, in practice the knock comes from the county.

And private plaintiffs — the most consequential enforcement of all, involving no agency. In a personal injury action brought for a child, the disclosure file, the annual notice responses and the investigation reports are the first documents demanded. This is why the 27-2056.4(d)(2) presumption mechanic matters: an owner who ran the notice cycle and holds a “no child resides here” response the occupant never updated has a defence to the presumption. An owner who never sent the notice has nothing.

Assuming “New York lead law” means Local Law 1

The most expensive mistake here, and it runs both ways. A Buffalo landlord reading a NYC guide runs an annual notice cycle they do not owe and never registers with the state registry they do owe. A New York City landlord reading about the registry concludes lead is an upstate problem and misses 27-2056.4 entirely. Establish which layer you are in first.

Treating a studio as categorically exempt

Through 12 January 2025 a 0-bedroom dwelling was excluded from target housing outright. But 40 CFR 745.103 as amended (89 FR 89416) now withdraws the 0-bedroom exclusion where a child under six resides or is expected — so a pre-1978 studio with a young child is covered. Older charts and competitor pages still show the studio as unconditional; do not rely on them.

Printing a 10-day inspection line on a lease disclosure

Copied from the sales form. 40 CFR 745.113(b) has no inspection item. You are documenting a waiver of a right that does not exist, on a document every party certifies as accurate.

Citing 27-2056.18’s “under seven” as the live NYC trigger

Local Law 1’s own text does set an under-seven baseline, so the Housing Maintenance Code reads that way — but the same sentence lets the Board of Health narrow it, and the Board did, effective 1 October 2006. NYC Health Code §173.14 defines “child of applicable age” as a child “less than six years of age”, and HPD enforces on under six. Reading the Admin Code without the Health Code definition it points to yields a confidently-cited wrong age; an earlier version of this page made exactly that mistake.

Sending the NYC annual notice in December, or in February

27-2056.4(e)(1) is a window with two walls: no earlier than January first, no later than January sixteenth. The rent-bill option has its own window — the bill must be delivered after December fifteenth and no later than January sixteenth.

Treating a non-response as a “no”

Silence is not an answer. Under 27-2056.4(e)(3)(i), no written response by February fifteenth plus no actual knowledge obliges the owner to inspect the unit — and where access could not be gained despite reasonable attempts between February sixteenth and March first, to notify DOHMH. Filing the non-response and moving on violates the section and forfeits the evidentiary protection the cycle exists to give you.

Skipping the child-inquiry notice on a renewal

27-2056.4(d)(1) says “at the signing of a lease, including a renewal lease“. The federal renewal exemption at 745.101(d) does not touch this city duty.

Checking “no knowledge” while holding an XRF report

An owner who completed the 27-2056.4(a-1) investigation has, by definition, records. So does a registry owner after a 67-5.5 inspection. A false “no knowledge” is what converts a paperwork lapse into a knowing violation under 4852d(b)(3), with treble damages attached.

Registering the occupied units only

10 NYCRR 67-5.4(a): “All units in eligible dwellings must be included in the registry regardless of occupancy status.” The vacant one counts.

Buying a building without the lead file

27-2056.4(f) requires investigation reports to be transferred to the owner’s successor in title, and 67-5.4(e) makes registry registrations non-transferable — a new owner registers the change within 30 days. Both traps close on the buyer. Ask for a decade of reports in diligence.

Treating encapsulation as abatement

10 NYCRR 67-5.7(d)(2)(iv) and (4)(ii) say the department does not regard encapsulation or enclosure as permanent abatement warranting an inspection exemption, because encapsulants degrade and enclosures get removed. Painting over it does not end the three-year cycle.

Confusing disclosure with condition

A flawless disclosure is not a defence to peeling paint. Real Prop. Law 235-b, the class C violation at 27-2056.6, and the registry’s hazard machinery all operate on the condition of the paint.

The right to receive the disclosure before being obligated

Not at move-in, not with the keys. A New York tenant is entitled to the signed disclosure and the EPA pamphlet before being obligated under the lease, so the information can actually affect the decision to sign.

The right to the pamphlet as a delivered document

Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home, handed over — not a link. In New York City there is a second, city pamphlet under 27-2056.4(c) and section 17-179(b) as well.

The right to every record the landlord holds

Including building-wide evaluations covering common areas and other units. The disclosure item is a list of records “available to the lessor”, not a list the lessor finds convenient.

The right to treble damages and fees

Under 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3), a knowing violator is jointly and severally liable to the lessee for three times the damages incurred; under (b)(4) the court may add court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and expert witness fees.

The NYC tenant’s right to the annual notice, an investigation, and the results

A tenant in a covered New York City multiple dwelling is entitled to the annual child-inquiry notice in the January window, and — where a child of applicable age resides — to an annual investigation under 27-2056.4(a). Under 27-2056.4(f) the tenant must be told the results in writing and given a copy of the report. Under 27-2056.9(b) a complaint about peeling paint in a covered pre-1960 unit obliges the department to inspect within ten days.

The NYC tenant’s benefit from the presumption

In a pre-1960 multiple dwelling, paint where a child of applicable age resides is presumed lead-based paint under 27-2056.5(a). The tenant does not have to prove it is lead; the owner has to prove it is not, through certified testing the department accepts.

The registry tenant’s right to notification and to non-retaliation

Outside New York City, a tenant of a registered dwelling is entitled under 10 NYCRR 67-5.8(a) to written notification that their unit is in the registry, with its status and lead safety education; under (b) to inspection results within 24 hours where hazards are found; and under (h) to be free of retaliation — including rent increases, fines and non-renewals during remediation — for reporting a suspected hazard. Under (f), where the department requires relocation, suitable temporary housing is the owner’s responsibility.

The right to a habitable unit

Independent of every disclosure rule above, N.Y. Real Prop. Law 235-b entitles a tenant to premises fit for human habitation. Deteriorated lead paint supports a rent-abatement claim, a defence in a non-payment proceeding, or an affirmative habitability action — regardless of what the disclosure said. See how habitability claims work in New York.

The right to fair-housing protection

Under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., familial status is protected. A landlord who answers lead obligations by declining to rent to families with young children has traded a lead problem for a discrimination problem. The lawful answer to a child moving in is to comply, not to avoid the child.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.