A New Jersey appellate court has ordered a new trial in a civil dispute involving claims of lead exposure in an apartment, finding that the trial court misapplied state housing law and deprived the tenant of important legal protections. The ruling affects tenants and landlords by clarifying when certain statutory duties apply to rental properties.
The complaint was filed by Lourdes Gonzalez against 908-910 Washington Street, LLC, her former landlord, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County. The appellate decision was issued on March 30, 2026.
According to court documents, Gonzalez discovered that the hot water system in her Hoboken apartment contained nearly seventy times the amount of lead allowed by Environmental Protection Agency standards. She attributed cognitive decline and other health issues to long-term lead poisoning from drinking hot water supplied through copper pipes soldered with lead. An expert retained by Gonzalez also suggested she had been exposed to lead paint within the apartment and linked three miscarriages she suffered in her twenties to lead toxicity.
Gonzalez lived in the apartment for forty-six years, from 1974 to 2020. She filed suit against her landlord—908-910 Washington Street, LLC—a plumbing company (later dismissed), and unnamed parties who installed the heating system. Her claims included negligence, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and violation of the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Act (HMDA).
The property consists of two connected buildings at 908 and 910 Washington Street. Both are three stories tall with apartments above a first-floor restaurant space shared between them. Ownership transferred to defendant LLC in 2001; Eugene Flinn and his wife are its sole members.
Previously, Gonzalez and her sisters sued this landlord over other habitability issues; that case settled with a written release covering all known or unknown claims related to that action. Initially, this release led to dismissal of Gonzalez’s current lawsuit, but an earlier appellate opinion remanded it for further proceedings because it was unclear if lead poisoning had been contemplated during settlement.
During pretrial discovery, attempts were made by Gonzalez to substitute Flinn as a defendant for his alleged role as owner during installation of the pipes in 1996. These motions were denied due to concerns about prejudice given the time elapsed since installation and because Flinn’s identity was deemed easily ascertainable before filing.
At trial in fall 2024, after hearing evidence about ownership structure and physical integration between buildings—including testimony that first-floor renovations merged both addresses into one restaurant—the judge ruled that HMDA did not apply because each building had only two apartments above separate lots. As a result, Count One alleging violation of HMDA was dismissed via directed verdict against Gonzalez.
The judge also limited expert testimony regarding reproductive toxicity (miscarriages) and exposure to lead paint based on evidentiary grounds: lack of direct inspection or supporting medical records rendered such opinions speculative or reliant on inadmissible hearsay.
The jury ultimately returned a no-cause verdict on remaining counts for negligence and breach of implied warranty.
On appeal, however, judges Sabatino, Walcott-Henderson, and Bergman found error in how the trial court classified the premises under HMDA. They cited legislative intent for broad application of tenant protections under state law—even where buildings have separate addresses or lots—if they function as an integrated multiple dwelling through shared use or common ownership. The appellate panel stated: “We respectfully reverse the trial court’s classification ruling under the HMDA and its entry of a directed verdict on Count One.”
Because HMDA imposes affirmative duties on landlords—including providing potable water—the omission from jury instructions materially disadvantaged Gonzalez’s case: “Plaintiff was deprived of the benefit…of that Model Charge,” which would have informed jurors about statutory standards beyond general habitability requirements.
Other arguments raised by both sides were addressed but not found sufficient for reversal: denial of substitution for Flinn as defendant was upheld due to lack of diligence; exclusion of certain expert testimony was affirmed as within judicial discretion; defenses based on prior settlement release or statute of limitations were rejected after careful review; late filing of appeal was excused as minor delay without prejudice.
The appeals court concluded: “Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial with proper jury instructions that include the duties owed under the HMDA.” A case management conference is ordered within thirty days.
Attorneys listed include Richard D. Picini (Caruso Smith Picini PC) representing appellant/cross-respondent Lourdes Gonzalez and Janet Kalapos Corrigan (Leyden Capotorto Ritacco Corrigan & Sheehy PC) representing respondent/cross-appellant 908-910 Washington Street LLC. The case ID is A-1099-24.
Source: A109924_Gonzalez_v_908_910_Washington_Street_LLC_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
