Battle over city's lead law is back in court.

The City Council has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit aimed at stopping a controversial new lead abatement law in its tracks.

Even without the support of its housing, health or homeless commissioners, the city council is asking the State Supreme Court to throw out the suit, which was filed in April by groups representing landlords and advocates for low-income housing.

The lawsuits, led by the Rent Stabilization Association and the Community Preservation Corporation, claim the City Council acted rashly and illegally before passing Local Law 1 which, the landlords claim, will ultimately make it harder for all New Yorkers to get affordable, housing. "Even though the health commissioner, the housing commissioner and the homeless services commissioner all testified against the law, and the mayor vetoed it, the city council overruled the veto and the law is scheduled to take effect August 2," explained Mitchell Posilkin, general counsel of the Rent Stabilization Association.

The real estate groups argue, however, that the new law mistakenly presumes that all pre-1960 buildings have lead paint, thus shifting the burden of liability onto owners and making it more difficult for them to obtain insurance and financing.

"We believe that the bill is so onerous and will have such dramatic implications for property owners that it will ultimately result in an increase in lead poisoning, and not the desired decrease," said Posilkin.

"We can't predict how the courts are going to interpret the law in any particular case, but we believe that our case is a legitimate one and that we have raised very serious, very substantial legal arguments which would require that Local Law 1 be invalidated."

Meanwhile, the RSA is advising its members to educate themselves about the new law, which regulates the removal of lead paint hazards, including dust, from apartments built before 1960. It also requires annual identification of all children under the age of seven years living in those units.

The organization has already run one filled-to-capacity seminar for its members and is actively advising members of what will be expected of them under the new law because, even if the motion to dismiss the lawsuit is denied, the court still has to consider the merits of the case before making an ultimate determination.

"Through no fault of anyone, the wheels of justice can move slowly," said Posilkin. "What we do know is that property owners are extremely concerned and it is very clear there continues to be a need for a massive education effort so that owners know what they need to do as of Aug. 2."

Even if the law is overturned, many of its provisions will eventually be enacted, according to the RSA, which is advising owners to continue to remove lead hazards in "a safe and effective" manner. Owners who have not mailed annual lead paint notices are also being urged to do so. And, John McCarthy, executive vice president of CPC, said, "We are requiring lead liability insurance as a requirement of any closing on older buildings and looking closely at any serious impediments it places on rehabilitation. This law will severely restrict our ability to finance rehabilitation."

Nick LaPorte of the Associated Builders and Owners of New York, which is also party to lawsuit, added, "The law was passed in a frenzy of panic. [Speaker] Gifford Miller wanted to come out looking like a hero but he paid no attention to the practical impact of what this law is going to do which is create worse conditions for children that the prior law." Speaker Miller's office did not respond to a request for comment by press time.