Respondents notice of the state of the subject premises, including violations from 2013
for a collapsed ceiling in the common area, violations from 2015 for cracks in interior
plaster walls, defective masonry, and a spalling, bulging, and cracked front facade, and
violations from 2017 for vertical cracks on the facade and bowing exterior walls and
parapet walls. Compounding this notice, Respondents' engineer testified that he
informed Respondents of brick movement in 2016.
Despite the subject premises' obvious need for maintenance, the DOB director
testified on DOB's prima facie case that the state of the subject premises did not display
any evidence of pointing or maintenance of the exterior. Respondents' expert testified
that there was no evidence of maintenance of the facades as of February of 2018. The
Property Manager herself testified that she never oversaw work on the facade.
Respondents' expert testified that the roof was beyond its useful life of twenty years. A
photograph in evidence showed vegetation growing on the roof, which demonstrated that
water had been ponding on the roof for a protracted period of time, according to DOB's
expert's testimony. Petitioners testified that the maintenance of the roof fell to them
rather than, say, a roofer retained by Respondents. Respondents' expert testified that the
peeled paint and deteriorated wood he observed demonstrated no signs of maintenance
within at least the last five years before his testimony.[FN5]
Respondents did not rebut any of this evidence, nor prove that they engaged in minimal
efforts to mitigate water penetration of the subject premises, like maintaining an
operative connection between the scupper and the leader.
Why would Respondents pay $4.5 million in 2012 for a property appraised at $2.5