with Respondents' expert; that engineers gave them a set of plans that were marked up
with scope of repairs; that he differentiated between general costs for all three buildings
that comprise the subject premises and costs specific to each of the three buildings to
avoid artificially inflating the estimate; that he used a a low amount and a high amount;
that the DOB's expert's estimate of $600,000 contemplates a completely different scope
of work; that his scope of work is essentially a full gut [*11]renovation, entailing work on party walls, joists,
mechanical work, electrical work, and plumbing; and that DOB's expert's report does not
include line items for asbestos and lead abatement, electrical work, plumbing work, fire
protection, and permit fees, which he included.
The Construction Consultant testified on Petitioner's cross-examination that he does
not determine what repairs are necessary; and that Respondents' expert's scope of work
was effectively a gut renovation, calling for demolition of most partition walls.
The Court granted DOB's application to qualify DOB's expert as an expert. DOB's
expert testified that Sanborn maps showed the existence of the subject premises in 1854,
with a public school to the west and row of buildings to the east; that the walls were built
as party walls as opposed to independent walls; that the building to the east of the subject
premises was replaced in 1911; that the kind of wood used to build rowhouses in the
1850s was old growth timber, which is denser and stronger than modern farmed timber;
that wood to wood connections will be made with mortise and tenon rather than using
metal connectors; that this wood ages differently as the wood shrinks, which loosens the