Judge blasts NYCHA

Ridicules lead claim

A judge tore into lawyers for New York City and its troubled publichousing agency as both tried on Tuesday to weasel out of a classaction suit over the widening leadpaint scandal.

Manhattan federal Judge William Pauley III appeared incredulous as he ridiculed claims by the New York City Housing Authority that it shouldn’t be held liable for the suffering of lead-poisoned kids — because it had illegally stopped conducting mandatory inspections for lead paint.

“Your argument is simply because they didn’t do any inspection, and lied to the government, they are off the hook?” Pauley asked.

“Can you simply stop the inspections . . . and pretend you don’t have new information? That’s your argument?”

The judge also scoffed at the city’s argument that it shouldn’t be part of the case, even though Mayor de Blasio last week agreed to provide at least $1.2 billion in additional funding over five years for NYCHA repairs.

That deal settled a suit filed by the Manhattan US Attorney’s Office over decrepit and dangerous living conditions in city housing projects — including peeling, flaking and otherwise damaged lead paint.

“The city agrees to pay billions. How can you say the city doesn’t belong as a defendant in this?” Pauley asked.

The suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of at least four kids who suffered lead poisoning while living in NYCHA apartments in Manhattan, Brooklyn and The Bronx — as well as any others living in about 55,000 other potentially tainted apartments.

Last year, the city Department of Investigation revealed that NYCHA falsely told the US Department of Housing and Urban Development the apartments had been inspected between 2013 and 2016 — and that then-NYCHA Chair Shola Olatoye signed one form despite knowing it wasn’t true.

In last week’s settlement with the feds, NYCHA admitted making “untrue representations” to HUD regarding lead-paint safety at least as far back as 2010.

During Tuesday’s hearing, plaintiffs lawyer Renner Walker argued in favor of lifting the statute of limitations in the case because NYCHA residents were “assured it was OK” to live in their apartments.

NYCHA lawyer Miriam Skolnik claimed the suit should be tossed because “Congress created a very limited cause of action” in such cases.

“They made it very clear — it’s not a duty to inspect, but a duty to disclose what you know,” she said.

City lawyer Mark Muschenheim also said the city and NYCHA were “separate legal entities,” and contended that last week’s deal “doesn’t mean we are necessarily on the hook with the plaintiffs in this case.”

Pauley didn’t rule on defense motions to dismiss the suit, or say when he would hand down a decision.

Also Tuesday, a group representing NYCHA tenants filed court papers seeking a “seat at the table” while Pauley considers whether to sign off on last week’s settlement agreement between NYCHA and the feds.

The City-Wide Council of Presidents said that the deal “offers tenants no role in setting performance standards and policies” and that the money offered by the city “cannot possibly solve the systemic, pervasive problems in NYCHA’s facilities and operations.” Additional reporting by Kaja Whitehouse