FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OCT. 15, 2024

CONTACT:

Shannon Holfoth | sholfoth@gmail.com, 716-913-5071

Andrea Ó Súilleabháin, Executive Director, PPG | andrea@ppgbuffalo.org,
716-430-0464

Patrick Fowler, Communications Strategist, NCLEJ | fowler@nclej.org

Plaintiffs Argue the City of Buffalo Has Mandatory Duty to Fully Implement Proactive Inspections Law During First Hearing Held in Lawsuit Against City

Buffalo, N.Y. – Acting Supreme Court Justice, Honorable Michael A. Siragusa, heard arguments today in the lawsuit filed by four community organizations and four individual residents against the City of Buffalo over the City’s failure to follow its Proactive Rental Inspections (PRI) law. 

PRI, passed with great fanfare by city officials in 2020, mandates regular inspections of investor-owned single and double rental units. The law aimed to reduce alarmingly high rates of lead poisoning among Buffalo’s children and mitigate other health and safety issues found in substandard rental housing.The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in July 2024 to compel the City to fully implement its own law.

Organizational plaintiffs in this case are: Partnership for the Public Good, PUSH Buffalo, Housing Opportunities Made Equal, and Center for Elder Law and Justice. They, along with four Buffalo renters, are represented by Lipsitz, Ponterio & Comerford, LLC; the Western New York Law Center; and the National Center for Law and Economic Justice. 

Today marked the first hearing in the lawsuit. The City’s response was to try to get the case thrown out by filing a motion to dismiss. Judge Siragusa heard arguments from both the plaintiffs’ attorney, John N. Lipsitz of Lipsitz, Ponterio & Comerford, and the City of Buffalo’s Assistant Corporation Counsel, David Lee, about the City’s motion to dismiss the case. 

Lipsitz argued that the Commissioner of Inspections has a legal duty to conduct inspections of PRI-covered units, and that these units must be inspected before being included in the City’s rental registry and owners must also apply for and receive a certificate of rental compliance before they can be lawfully rented.

The City’s PRI law states that “the Commissioner shall make an inspection of the rental dwelling unit that is the subject of an application…to determine whether or not such rental dwelling unit is in substantial compliance with this chapter and all other applicable housing and building codes.” Lipsitz argued that the word “shall” means that the Commissioner has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to inspect PRI-covered properties. Lipsitz also explained that the Commissioner is not fulfilling this duty, as only 13% of covered units have been inspected since the law was passed. 

Second, Lipsitz noted that the PRI law requires covered rental units to have both a rental dwelling unit registration and a certificate of rental compliance (CRC) before they can legally be rented. Fewer than 500 rental units have received a CRC from the City. Yet, Lipstiz pointed out, the City has registered nearly 32,000 uninspected units in its rental registry. According to the law, these units should not be available for rent unless they have passed a PRI inspection and have received a CRC. 

The City continued to evade responsibility throughout the hearing. David Lee claimed that lead hazards and other safety concerns in rental housing are the landlords’ failure; they don’t have to do with the lack of City inspections. Lee also argued that, despite the law saying that the “Commissioner shall” conduct inspections, the City still has discretion about when and how the law is implemented. Lee tried to argue that this case is not within the court’s purview because of this discretion.

The City’s attorney also tried to shirk the City’s duties by saying that resource challenges slowed down the inspections. Judge Siragusa asked whether this is relevant, and Lipsitz later argued that resource allocation cannot be used as an excuse to neglect mandatory legal duties. He argued that implementing any law will require shifting and juggling resources.

Judge Siragusa asked questions throughout the hearing and said he would likely issue a decision on the City’s motion to dismiss in a few weeks. 

QUOTES:

Matthew Parham, Co-Counsel and Director of Litigation & Advocacy, WNY Law Center:

“The City’s motion is really mischaracterizing our case, saying we’re trying to invade the City’s discretion to decide whether and how to enforce the law against specific landlords or that we’re trying to get the City to abate lead paint violations when that’s really the landlords’ responsibility. But the law the Common Council passed in 2020 requires the City to do inspections proactively of every unit before allowing it to be rented, not reactively to enforce the law against particular landlords, and it's the City’s responsibility to follow its own law and carry out the inspections. Their own report admits they’re not following the law and not doing the inspections.” 

John N. Lipsitz, Founding Partner, Lipsitz, Ponterio & Comerford:

“The City of Buffalo’s low-income residents, especially their children, are subjected to an inescapable, all encompassing environment, authorized and approved by the City of Buffalo. This environment is characterized by lead contamination and numerous other hazardous conditions – leaky roofs, collapsing floors, insect infestation, standing water, doors and windows that don’t lock or close, rodents, etc. This all stems from the City’s inexcusable failure to inspect properties before they’re allowed to be rented.”

Carmela Huang, Senior Attorney, National Center for Law and Economic Justice:

“Nearly 450 children under the age of six are diagnosed with elevated blood lead levels every year in Buffalo. The City cannot be allowed to continue to evade responsibility – they must be held accountable for failing to enforce the PRI law meant to protect residents from lead paint and other hazards.”