apartments and there was not a first floor front apartment, or basement apartments at the
Building. Farkas acknowledged that in May 2009, there had been demolition work not only in
the basement, but elsewhere in the Building, and that prior to the fire, the Building had tenants
whose presence made such work unfeasible. The court accepted into evidence a Department of
Buildings violation record, for a violation issued on January 8, 2009, because of the existence of
a class "A" apartment in the cellar of the Building, and two notices of violation placed on March
30, 2009, one for the conversion of a dentist's office into a dwelling unit, and the other for work
without a permit to add water and waste lines for a bath, sink, and toilet, and a gas line for a
stove.
Respondent called Joe Pacheco, a paralegal employed at the offices of respondent's counsel,
to testify. On May 5, 2009, Pacheco stated, he was asked to visit the Building and take pictures,
and to try to ascertain the number of apartments in the Building. When he arrived at the
Building, he saw a garbage truck in front of the Building along with numerous workers, and he
believed that demolition was taking place; once in the Building, Pacheco found that the workers
were knocking down studs and walls both on an upper level and in the basement. The court then
accepted into evidence a series of 19 photographs taken by Pacheco depicting the interior of the
Building. The trial record closed at the conclusion of Pacheco's testimony.
The court finds that petitioner offered testimony and evidence sufficient to establish
the elements of its prima facie case; petitioner offered both the deed and respondent's lease with
its predecessor in interest, evidence of the Multiple Dwelling Registration, and proof of the