that she does not remember a conversation about the high number of vacancies; that
Respondents had a discussion about possibly emptying the subject premises; that
Respondents would see if a tenant wanted a legal buyout offer; that the reason to buy a
tenant out was to give them options about what to do, or just to have an empty building;
that, of the 48 units in the subject premises, about 25 were occupied in 2012; that
Respondents never rented a vacant unit in the subject premises; that she does not know
why; that no one told her to rent other units; that the number of tenants in the subject
premises went down from 2012 to 2019; that between 10 and 12 tenants received
buyouts, some of which were initiated by tenants; that Respondent, who is her father, or
another of the named Respondents, who is her uncle, dealt with buyouts, which were
between $7,500 and $50,000; that, in 2019, the average monthly rent in the subject
premises was $400, which was insufficient to operate the subject premises; that she did
not know if Respondents visited the subject premises before purchasing it; that she was
never on the roof of the subject premises; that the only time she heard of a leak was in
2013; that she did not know if the leak was related to a roof or something else; that no
tenant told her that water dripped from the roof or the skylights; that she was not aware
that tenants patched the roof; and that the subject premises lost money every month from
2012 onward.
The Property Manager testified on HPD's cross-examination that she visited the
subject premises in 2018; that she did not see any leaks or holes in the ceiling at the time;
that she did not know if the condition of the subject premises she observed at that time