Corporate Accountability Project · EvilCorporations.com
Rose Demolition & Carting Inc. · EPA Federal Complaint · 2016-2019
Rose Demolition Poisoned 668 NYC Apartments with Lead Dust
A Bronx demolition company spent three years tearing apart lead-painted walls in pre-war apartments, leaving workers, children, and low-income families to breathe the toxic debris.
🔴 CRITICAL SEVERITY
668
Confirmed target housing projects violated
583
Pre-1940 buildings, 87% likely to contain lead paint
611
Projects with zero certified lead safety supervisor
80+
Projects in overburdened environmental justice communities
1,937
Micrograms lead per sq ft found in one hallway (limit: 40)
$48K
Max civil penalty per violation per day under federal law
TL;DR
From 2016 to 2019, Rose Demolition & Carting Inc., a Bronx-based company, demolished painted walls, doors, windows, and bathroom fixtures across 668 New York City apartments without following a single federally mandated lead-safety rule. The company never trained its workers on lead hazards, never assigned a certified lead safety supervisor to 611 of those jobs, never sealed work sites to contain toxic dust, and never warned families or residents that they were being exposed to lead. Children living in and near these buildings faced direct exposure to lead dust, which causes permanent brain damage, reduced IQ, learning disabilities, and behavioral disorders. The company specifically did the most to protect wealthy tenants in luxury buildings while ignoring the safety of low-income families, many of whom already lived in communities burdened by other environmental hazards.
This is not an accident or an oversight. This is a company that treated the health of working-class and low-income New Yorkers as a cost it was unwilling to pay. Demand accountability, share this story, and support organizations fighting environmental justice in your city.
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What they did · 8 points
| 01 | Rose performed at least 668 demolition projects in New York City pre-1978 apartments and houses between 2016 and 2019 without complying with federal lead-safe work practice requirements. | high |
| 02 | Rose did not evaluate any of the 668 homes for the presence of lead-based paint before demolishing painted walls, doors, or window frames, a fact Rose itself acknowledged in writing. | high |
| 03 | Rose failed to assign a Certified Renovator to direct lead-safe practices on 611 of the 668 confirmed target housing projects, a fact documented in Rose’s own records submitted to the EPA. | high |
| 04 | Rose did not provide any training to its workers regarding lead hazards. Multiple former employees confirmed they were never told lead-based paint was a concern, even while tearing apart plaster walls in buildings constructed before 1940. | high |
| 05 | Rose failed to contain demolition sites: doorways were left unsealed, windows were left open, air ducts and vents were not covered, and debris was carted outside in uncovered bins through building hallways and stairwells. | high |
| 06 | Rose failed to warn building occupants. The company did not post lead-hazard warning signs and did not distribute the federally required Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet to property owners or residents before demolition began. | high |
| 07 | Rose failed to use proper cleanup procedures after demolition. Workers used ordinary brooms, dustpans, and mops instead of legally required HEPA vacuums and specialized wet-mopping methods designed to capture lead dust. | med |
| 08 | Rose admitted it could not produce any documentation demonstrating compliance with lead-safe work practice rules for the vast majority of the 668 projects. The company’s paper records for the 57 projects where documentation was provided are described in the federal complaint as lacking credibility. | high |
Profit Over People
Protection reserved for paying customers, not working families · 5 points
| 01 | Former Rose employees reported that the only time Rose made any effort to contain dust was on projects in upscale buildings, where wealthy residents’ complaints could affect payment to the company. | high |
| 02 | One former worker reported that Rose set up plastic sheeting only on luxury apartment projects near Central Park, while workers on projects in lower-income buildings received no dust containment materials at all. | high |
| 03 | Workers were instructed by Rose foremen to never cover debris bins because it was time-consuming, and to focus instead on hauling debris out as fast as possible, scattering lead-contaminated dust through building hallways. | high |
| 04 | Workers reported that Rose kept windows open on higher-floor apartments during demolition because lead dust emitted from higher floors was less likely to generate visible complaints from passersby on the street below. | med |
| 05 | Some Rose workers reported that instead of containing dust, the company used machines to collect dust from inside the demolition site and blow it out the window through a hose, directly dispersing lead-contaminated particulate into the open air. | high |
Public Health and Safety
Lead exposure, child poisoning, and worker harm · 6 points
| 01 | Lead dust left in building hallways at 1301 3rd Avenue in Manhattan tested at 1,937 micrograms per square foot in one third-floor hallway. The then-applicable legal limit was 40 micrograms per square foot. All ten dust samples taken exceeded that limit. | high |
| 02 | Lead poisoning in children causes permanent, irreversible brain damage, reduced IQ, learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity, and behavioral disorders. Children under six are most vulnerable. | high |
| 03 | Rose performed demolition at 1301 3rd Avenue while at least one child was living in the building. The federal complaint notes that the building’s six residential units included children as occupants during the demolition period. | high |
| 04 | An estimated 87% of buildings constructed before 1940 contain lead-based paint. Rose conducted 583 of its 668 confirmed violations in pre-1940 buildings. Rose never tested a single property before beginning demolition. | high |
| 05 | Rose’s untrained workers were themselves exposed to lead dust during demolition and potentially carried lead particles home on their clothing and in their vehicles, putting their own families, including their children, at risk of lead poisoning. | high |
| 06 | In addition to lead, adult exposure to lead causes hypertension, kidney failure, and infertility. Workers who hauled debris from Rose demolition sites between 2015 and 2019 were never informed of any of these risks. | high |
Community Impact and Environmental Justice
Low-income neighborhoods targeted, least protected · 4 points
| 01 | At least 80 of Rose’s demolition projects in confirmed target housing took place in areas where low-income populations already face disproportionate environmental burdens, including proximity to Superfund sites, hazardous waste facilities, and respiratory hazards. | high |
| 02 | Rose’s own conduct explicitly discriminated by neighborhood wealth: safety precautions were reserved for luxury buildings while working-class and low-income residents received none of the protections required by federal law. | high |
| 03 | The federal complaint explicitly frames Rose’s violations as an environmental justice failure, noting that preventing companies like Rose from exposing families to lead dust is “vital to protecting already overburdened populations.” | med |
| 04 | By operating for three years across more than 800 demolition projects with no meaningful enforcement intervention until 2018, Rose was able to expose hundreds of families in vulnerable communities to potential lead poisoning while facing no consequences. | high |
Worker Exploitation
Employees kept ignorant of hazards they faced daily · 5 points
| 01 | Worker 1, a carting laborer at Rose from 2017 to 2018, reported that Rose never warned him about lead-based paint at any work site, never provided training, and he was unaware of any certified lead safety supervisor on any project he worked on. | high |
| 02 | Worker 2, a laborer and foreman at Rose from 2014 to 2017, stated that at no point during his entire tenure, including while serving as a foreman, did Rose provide any guidance on how to handle lead-based paint hazards. | high |
| 03 | Worker 3 stated that no one at Rose ever mentioned lead-based paint to him and that he did not know it was something to be concerned about until investigators interviewed him about it. | high |
| 04 | Worker 4 carted debris from demolition sites to garbage trucks for Rose from 2000 until 2018, an 18-year period, and reported that nobody at Rose ever trained him on lead-safe work practices at any point in nearly two decades of employment. | high |
| 05 | Workers were given no protective equipment beyond ordinary construction tools. They used shovels, brooms, and mops to clean demolition sites, scattering lead-contaminated dust rather than capturing it with required HEPA filtration equipment. | med |
Regulatory Failures
How oversight broke down · 4 points
| 01 | The EPA’s RRP Rule has been in force since 2008. Rose’s violations span 2016 to 2019. Over those three years, more than 668 federally protected demolition projects proceeded without any regulatory intervention until a complaint to the NYC Department of Health in February 2018. | high |
| 02 | When the EPA issued an Information Request to Rose in May 2019, Rose initially claimed most of the demolished properties were built after 1978 and therefore not covered by lead-safe rules. Rose later admitted in writing that the vast majority were pre-1978 buildings. | high |
| 03 | Rose held a valid EPA Renovation, Repair, and Painting firm certification throughout this period. Certification did not prevent systematic violations and did not trigger any proactive enforcement before inspectors caught Rose workers red-handed at 40 5th Avenue. | med |
| 04 | Rose’s records for the 57 projects where documentation was provided list the company’s own CEO as the Certified Renovator simultaneously present and directing work across overlapping projects. The federal complaint describes these records as lacking credibility. | high |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Fraudulent records, no admissions, injunctive relief pending · 4 points
| 01 | Rose admitted in writing that it has no documentation of compliance with lead-safe work practices for the vast majority of the 668 confirmed violation projects. Absence of records is itself a federal violation under the Toxic Substances Control Act. | high |
| 02 | Records Rose did provide for 57 projects list a single worker as the Certified Renovator trained across projects at three different Manhattan addresses, years apart, which investigators found physically implausible given the scope and duration of the demolition work involved. | high |
| 03 | The U.S. government is seeking injunctive relief to stop Rose from performing further renovation work until the company can prove compliance with federal lead-safety rules. As of the filing of the complaint in September 2024, no financial penalty amount has been determined. | med |
| 04 | Federal civil penalty provisions allow for up to $48,512 per violation per day. Given that Rose committed violations at 668 projects over multiple years, total potential exposure could be substantial. The government has reserved the right to pursue civil penalties in administrative proceedings based on findings in this case. | high |
Timeline of Events
2008
EPA enacts the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule, requiring lead-safe work practices for compensated renovations in pre-1978 housing.
2015
Worker 4 begins carting demolition debris for Rose. He will continue for three more years and never receive a single day of lead-safety training.
2016
Rose begins the period of violations covered by the federal complaint, performing demolition projects across New York City pre-war residential buildings without lead-safe practices.
Feb 19, 2018
Rose demolishes apartments 1R and 4R at 1301 3rd Avenue in Manhattan while at least one child lives in the building, leaving toxic lead dust throughout the building’s common areas.
Feb 21, 2018
NYC Department of Health inspects 1301 3rd Avenue after a complaint. All ten dust samples from hallways and stairwells test above the legal limit. One hallway sample registers 1,937 micrograms of lead per square foot, nearly 50 times the legal threshold.
Mar 9, 2018
EPA sends an Information Request to the general contractor at 1301 3rd Avenue. The contractor identifies Rose as the demolition firm that performed the work.
Nov 6, 2018
EPA inspectors arrive at 40 5th Avenue, a 1929 building, and observe Rose workers carting uncovered bins of debris to a truck. No certified renovators are on site. No warning signs are posted. Debris covers floors, uncontained.
May 22, 2019
EPA issues a formal Information Request to Rose demanding documentation of compliance for all renovation projects from 2016 to 2019.
Jul 8, 2019
Rose responds with only a project spreadsheet and two renovation certifications. The EPA finds the response deficient and demands all requested documentation.
Late 2019
Rose provides compliance documentation for only 57 of the 668 target housing projects. The company admits it has no documentation for the rest and initially misrepresents the construction dates of the properties involved.
Sep 30, 2024
The U.S. Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the EPA, files a federal complaint against Rose in the Southern District of New York, seeking an injunction barring Rose from further demolition work until it can prove compliance.
Direct Quotes from the Federal Complaint
QUOTE 1
The company only protected wealthy tenants
Profit Over People
“the only time Rose took any steps to minimize dust exposure was when work was being performed in upscale buildings where it could expect that residents’ complaints of dust might affect payment.”
💡 This quote proves Rose’s conduct was a deliberate business decision, not negligence. The company understood lead dust was a problem and chose to protect only the residents whose complaints would cost them money.
QUOTE 2
Workers told not to bother covering debris
Worker Exploitation
“Worker 3 recalled being told by multiple foremen at Rose never to bother covering the debris because it was time-consuming to do so.”
💡 This is evidence of institutional policy, not individual error. Multiple foremen gave the same instruction: speed over safety, always. Lead dust scattered through stairwells and hallways was the price residents paid for Rose’s efficiency.
QUOTE 3
Worker never told lead was a concern in 18 years
Worker Exploitation
“Worker 4 carted debris from demolition sites to garbage trucks for Rose from 2000 until 2018 at residential job sites throughout New York City and said that nobody at Rose ever trained him on lead-safe work practices.”
💡 Eighteen years. Not a single day of lead-safety training. This is not an oversight; it is a corporate culture of complete indifference to worker health that lasted nearly two decades.
QUOTE 4
Worker didn’t know lead was a concern until investigators told him
Core Allegations
“Worker 3 reported that no one at Rose ever brought up lead-based paint with him and said he did not know or realize it was something he should be concerned about until asked about it during an interview.”
💡 Rose’s workers were not just unprotected; they were kept completely unaware of the danger they faced every day. This is a company that prioritized its own insulation from liability over the safety of the people who built its profits.
QUOTE 5
Dust blown directly out windows into the open air
Public Health and Safety
“Rose set up machines that collected dust from inside the site and blew the dust out the window through a hose connected to a window.”
💡 Rather than contain toxic lead dust as required by law, Rose actively dispersed it into the open air. This is not a failure of compliance; it is the active creation of a public health hazard in residential neighborhoods.
QUOTE 6
The hallway lead readings: 48 times the legal limit
Public Health and Safety
“the sample from the third-floor public hallway, which measured 1,937 micrograms of lead per square foot.”
💡 The legal limit at the time was 40 micrograms per square foot. Rose left nearly 50 times that amount of lead dust in a public hallway used by residents and their children. This is not a technical violation; this is a building turned into a lead poisoning hazard.
QUOTE 7
Environmental justice: the poorest communities left most exposed
Community Impact
“Preventing companies like Rose from exposing families to potential lead dust is vital to protecting already overburdened populations.”
💡 The federal complaint itself acknowledges what the data makes clear: Rose’s worst conduct fell on communities that already carried the heaviest environmental burdens. This is environmental racism in practice.
QUOTE 8
Rose admitted it never tested a single property for lead
Core Allegations
“Rose has acknowledged that it did not evaluate any of these homes for the presence of lead-based paint before demolishing painted walls, doors, or window frames inside the homes.”
💡 Rose’s own admission. The company performed 668 demolitions in buildings presumed by law to contain lead paint, destroyed painted surfaces in every single one, and tested none of them. This admission eliminates any claim of accidental noncompliance.
Commentary
Why does lead dust from demolition cause such serious harm to children?
Lead dust is invisible, odorless, and settles on floors, furniture, and hands. Young children touch contaminated surfaces and then put their hands in their mouths, ingesting lead directly. Even at very low levels, lead is a potent neurotoxin that attacks the developing brain. The damage it causes, including reduced IQ, learning disabilities, impaired hearing, behavioral disorders, and reduced attention span, is permanent. There is no safe level of lead exposure for children. That is not a regulatory opinion; it is established medical fact, which is exactly why Congress mandated lead-safe demolition practices in 1992 and the EPA wrote detailed regulations in 2008. Rose ignored both for three years across hundreds of jobs in New York City.
Is this lawsuit serious, and does Rose face significant consequences?
Yes. This is a federal complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the EPA in the Southern District of New York, one of the most serious federal courts in the country. The government is seeking injunctive relief that would halt Rose’s operations until it can prove compliance, which could effectively shut the company down. The government has also reserved the right to pursue civil penalties of up to $48,512 per violation per day in separate administrative proceedings. Given 668 confirmed violation projects across multiple years, the total potential exposure is enormous. The complaint’s four separate claims cover distinct categories of violations, meaning each project may carry liability across multiple counts.
Why did the company treat luxury buildings differently from lower-income ones?
The answer, according to the federal complaint and interviews with former employees, is purely financial. Wealthy residents in upscale buildings were more likely to complain loudly about dust and construction disruptions, and those complaints could delay or reduce payment to Rose. Low-income tenants in modest buildings had less leverage, less access to legal resources, and less political power to enforce their rights. Rose exploited that power imbalance deliberately. The company understood the risk of lead dust because it took precautions when it stood to lose money. It chose not to take those precautions when the only cost of failing to do so fell on powerless residents.
How were workers harmed by Rose’s conduct?
Rose’s workers faced daily, unprotected exposure to lead dust and debris while demolishing walls, floors, ceilings, and bathroom fixtures in buildings that were, by federal legal presumption, contaminated with lead paint. Adults exposed to lead suffer from hypertension, kidney failure, and infertility. Workers who tracked lead dust home on their clothes and in their vehicles also inadvertently exposed their own family members. None of these workers were ever warned. None received safety training. None were given protective equipment beyond ordinary construction tools. Worker 4 hauled lead-contaminated debris for 18 consecutive years without a single word of warning from Rose about what he was breathing.
Can families who lived near Rose demolition projects know if they were exposed?
If you lived in or near one of the 668 buildings listed in Exhibit A of the federal complaint between 2016 and 2019, your household may have been exposed to lead dust during and after demolition work performed by Rose. You can request a blood lead level test from your doctor or a community health center; this is the definitive way to determine past exposure. For children, the CDC recommends testing anyone who may have been exposed. You can also contact a civil attorney about potential claims. The federal case itself does not provide direct compensation to affected residents, but private civil actions remain possible. New York City’s Department of Health can also be contacted for information on childhood lead testing programs.
How could this happen across 668 projects before anyone stopped it?
This case is a textbook example of how regulatory systems fail when enforcement is reactive rather than proactive. The RRP Rule required Rose to maintain records of compliance and make them available to the EPA on request. But the EPA did not inspect proactively; it investigated only after a resident filed a complaint with the NYC Department of Health in February 2018, two years into Rose’s pattern of violations. Rose was also able to hold a valid EPA firm certification throughout this period, meaning the certification system provided no effective safeguard against violations. The lesson is clear: certification without inspection is a formality, not protection.
What does this case reveal about the construction industry and lead safety more broadly?
The construction and demolition industry operates with relatively low barriers to entry and significant cost pressure to complete jobs quickly. Lead-safe work practices take time and cost money: sealing doorways, using HEPA vacuums, covering debris, training workers. Companies that cut these corners gain a competitive cost advantage over companies that comply. This creates a race to the bottom, where compliant firms are at a disadvantage and violations become a business model. Rose is not an isolated bad actor; it is a symptom of an enforcement environment where the odds of being caught are low and the cost of compliance feels higher than the risk of a violation. That calculus changes only when enforcement is swift, penalties are severe, and victims receive meaningful remedies.
What can I do to prevent this from happening again?
Several concrete actions can make a difference. If you are a tenant or resident in New York City, you have the right to know before any demolition or renovation work begins whether your building was constructed before 1978. Ask your landlord or property manager directly. You can file a complaint with the NYC Department of Health if you observe dusty construction without warning signs, sealed doorways, or proper containment. At the policy level, contact your city council member, state assembly representative, or federal congressional representative to advocate for increased funding for proactive EPA enforcement of the RRP Rule, not just reactive complaint-based investigation. Support environmental justice organizations working in your community. Share this story. The 668 families who lived through Rose’s violations deserved to know what was being done to their homes and their children. Make sure others do.
Here is a source for this story: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/05/154561.pdf
The Department of Justice also did a thing about this scandal too: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/united-states-obtains-consent-decree-against-rose-demolition-carting-violating-lead
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-10/u.s._v._rose_demolition_carting_consent_decree.pdf
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
