IN RE: RENT STABILIZATION ASSOCIATION OF N.Y.C. (2005)

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered September 1, 2004, dismissing this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 on the grant of municipal respondents' motion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Petitioners' challenge to the validity of the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act (Local Law 1 [2004];  see Administrative Code of City of NY, title 27, art. 14) was rejected for lack of standing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art. 8;  see Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 [1991] ).   Their claim of environmental harm-that the local ordinance will lead to a reduction in affordable housing and an increase in cases of lead poisoning-is speculative and insufficient to establish “injury in fact” (see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello, 2 N.Y.3d 207, 778 N.Y.S.2d 123, 810 N.E.2d 405 [2004] ).   Even if not speculative, the environmental harm alleged would be shared by the public at large, and is thus insufficient to confer individual standing on petitioners (Society of Plastics Indus., 77 N.Y.2d at 777-778, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034).   Since the instant case does not involve a zoning enactment, petitioners are not entitled to the presumption that they have suffered harm (Matter of Save Our Main St. Bldgs. v. Greene County Legislature, 293 A.D.2d 907, 908, 740 N.Y.S.2d 715 [2002], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 609, 747 N.Y.S.2d 409, 775 N.E.2d 1288 [2002];  Matter of Boyle v. Town of Woodstock, 257 A.D.2d 702, 704, 682 N.Y.S.2d 729 [1999];  cf. Matter of Har Enters. v. Town of Brookhaven, 74 N.Y.2d 524, 549 N.Y.S.2d 638, 548 N.E.2d 1289 [1989] ).

 The rebuttable presumption in the law that paint in pre-1960 buildings has a lead base is rationally supported (see Juarez v. Wavecrest Mgt. Team, 88 N.Y.2d 628, 641, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135 [1996];  see also Matter of New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. Vallone, 100 N.Y.2d 337, 343, 763 N.Y.S.2d 530, 794 N.E.2d 672 [2003] ) and does not violate due process (see generally Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City R.R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 43, 31 S.Ct. 136, 55 L.Ed. 78 [1910] ).   The City Council did not exceed its authority in legislating this presumption, which is merely evidentiary and does not impose absolute liability (see Juarez, 88 N.Y.2d at 643-644, 649 N.Y.S.2d 115, 672 N.E.2d 135;  see also Elliott v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 730, 724 N.Y.S.2d 397, 747 N.E.2d 760 [2001] ).

We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.