some fire damage which could effect the load-carrying capacity of joists depending on
the extent of charring; that the fracturing he observed is not from water damage at a few
joists, but could be caused by how they were originally constructed; that some joists were
fractured near mid-span due to a defect, like a knot in the underside of wood; that his
assessment is mostly visual; that it's not uncommon that removal of finishes reveals more
problems; and that window headers have to be repaired because the sills are
cracked.
Respondents' expert testified on Petitioners' cross-examination that the subject
premises could have been built as early as 1840; that not all buildings in Manhattan in
style are in this state of disrepair; that the damage to the subject premises is particular to
its circumstances; that a majority of damage is moisture-related, although not the facades;
that long-term exposure to moisture in the joists is not something that happened
overnight; and that he thinks that more repairs are necessary than DOB's expert.
Respondents' expert testified on DOB's cross-examination that he saw the subject
premises in an 1854 map of Manhattan; that he did not observe any adjacent property
construction, although he knows that buildings were constructed after the subject
premises; that it is possible that neighboring buildings could have damaged the subject
premises, but he did not know anything specific that happened there; that water collects
on the roof, exits through a [*10]scupper, and is directed
by a leader to a drainage system; that one leader is in disrepair; that the worst of the
damage is at party wall between 221 and 223; that there is no relation between a lack of a