the roof frame that caused water to remain on the roof rather than quickly drain off; that
water is supposed to drain off of the roof through a hole called a scupper into a leader;
that he did not remember if he checked to see if the leaders were working; and that he did
not meet with a DOB examiner after December 11, 2018 because he was waiting for a
CONH.
Respondents introduced into evidence a report dated March 20, 2018 that
Respondents' engineer wrote, which stated that the subject premises maintained
significant structural deficiencies: a severe deflection of floor framing and deterioration
of joists, excessive wood rot at joists, requiring total replacement of floor joists, a large
section of masonry wall was found to have moved laterally, further movement of which
could lead to a catastrophic collapse, and bulging and cracking in masonry.
Respondents' engineer testified on redirect examination that the DOB plan examiner had
told him that his estimate of $891,000 was too low; and that the examiner verbally told
him that a realistic cost estimate would be $2,675,100.
Respondent's engineer testified on DOB's recross examination that repeated water
exposure caused wood rot; that there may be a missing leader, but that would not affect
draining, as a leader just directs drain-off; that water goes down the facade if there is no
leader; that water running down facades may or may not be damaging, but it does not
help; that, if the subject premises is not watertight, water will continue to come into it;
that a freeze/thaw cycle in winter can worsen water intrusion, as water uniquely expands
when it freezes so it can cause damage if water freezes when in place, and can damage
brick masonry, although he did not know if that occurred with regard to the subject