New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has rejected the claim of a resident in a New York City apartment building that her alleged personal injuries were caused by indoor exposure to dampness and mold. The court found that the plaintiff had not established that the relevant scientific community generally accepted that mold caused the adverse health effects complained of by the plaintiff.

The Case
In a lawsuit Brenda Cornell brought against her landlord and other parties associated with the management of the Manhattan apartment building in which she lived for a number of years, Ms. Cornell alleged that throughout her occupancy the building's “basement was in a wet, damp, musty condition”; that the radiator in her apartment's living room “leaked on numerous occasions” and “continued to leak and also released steam into the Apartment” despite “attempt[s]” at repair; that after she noticed that “there was mold growing in the [apartment's] bathroom,” the owner “ignored” this condition; and that the landlord or its contractor performed “demolition and/or construction [work] in the basement of the Building …, permitting noxious dust, dirt, mold and debris to be released,” which infiltrated her first floor apartment.

Ms. Cornell claimed that “[i]mmediately after” the basement work was performed,

she became dizzy, disoriented, covered with rashes, unable to breathe, light-headed, congested, experienced tightness in her chest, had severe headaches, had shortness of breath, had a metallic taste in her mouth, and experienced other physical symptoms.

She listed her injuries as “[e]nvironmental asthma, allergies and reflux; cognitive and memory issues; fatigue; lack of stamina; sinus and breathing problems; headaches and rashes; seizures.”

Ms. Cornell pleaded causes of action for personal injuries and property damage, constructive eviction, attorney's fees, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She sought $11.8 million in damages, primarily for her alleged health problems, and another $10 million in punitive damages.

The landlord and building owner moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in their favor, and Ms. Cornell appealed.

An intermediate appellate court reversed, and the dispute reached the New Your Court of Appeals.

The Court's Decision
The court reversed the appellate court's decision.

In its decision, the court found that although studies showed an association between a damp and moldy indoor environment and the medical conditions that Ms. Cornell attributed to her exposure to mold, they did “not establish” that the relevant scientific community generally accepted that molds caused these adverse health effects.

In other words, the court ruled, Ms. Cornell had “not raised a triable issue of fact with respect to general causation.”

The case is Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC, No. 16 (N.Y. March 27, 2014). Attorneys involved include: Mindy L. Jayne, for appellant; Morrell I. Berkowitz, for respondent.

FC&S Legal Comment
The court's decision on general causation hinged on the scientific literature in the record before the trial court in this case – a record that was completed more than six years ago. It is worth noting, therefore, that the court's ruling should not necessarily be interpreted to stand for the proposition that a cause-and-effect relationship does not exist between exposure to indoor dampness and mold and the kinds of injuries that Ms. Cornell alleged. As the court itself observed, “Ms. Cornell simply did not demonstrate such a relationship on this record.”

Special Reports /

New York&rsquo;s Top Court Rejects Claim that Personal Injuries Were Caused by Indoor Exposure to Mold

Related Stories

Recommended For You

New York’s Top Court Rejects Claim that Personal Injuries Were Caused by Indoor Exposure to Mold