premises; that a photograph of missing windows in the subject premises could mean that
water could enter the subject premises; that the consequence depends on what surfaces it
impacts; and that he would recommend making the roof and scuppers impenetrable and
that windows be closed.
The Court granted Respondents' application to qualify Respondents' expert as an
expert witness. Respondents' expert testified that his firm provides professional
engineering services in various capacities, including envelope consulting; that he has a
BS and MS in civil engineering; that he does forensic work, entailing an examination of
a condition to advance an analysis to determine causes of issues and appropriate remedial
actions; that Respondents retained his firm; that he inspected the subject premises on
November 15, 2019; that there are shared party walls [*9]between 219 and 221, and also between 221 and 223; that
they have unreinforced (meaning without steel) brick masonry walls; that there is a
brownstone veneer; that the front and rear walls have window and door openings and
window sills; that the subject premises has wood frame construction and wood floor
joists; that there is a combination of finishes, including plaster with wood lathe and more
modern gypsum wall board; that the subject premises is a very common construction type
for the age of the subject premises, which is pre-1940s, and maybe as early as the
mid-1800s; that the subject premises has a shallow foundation, just below the cellar, with
stone masonry that transitions to brick as you come up; that the joists go from wall to
wall without interior supports; that the front and rear facades are in a severe state of
deterioration and in a state of collapse; that the entire brick facade is pulling away 6 to 8