with Respondents' engineer's testimony that the state of the subject premises would have
taken years of deterioration and neglect to develop.
Respondents argue that they in fact did repair work in the subject premises,
evidenced by HPD's dismissal of housing maintenance code violations. However,
Respondents' corrections of HPD violations — i.e., some of the problems
— do not excuse Respondents' failure to correct other, ultimately more serious
problems, particularly regarding the building envelope.
Respondents also argue that their retention of an engineer demonstrated a sufficient
attempt to repair the subject premises, and moreover that DOB thwarted Respondents'
engineer, both by delaying the approval of the PW1 application and by erroneously
requiring a CONH. Respondents retained Respondents' engineer in response to DOB's
order of February 5, 2018. Respondents' engineer submitted the PW1 application on July
6, 2018, five months later. DOB examiners then raised objections, which Respondents'
engineer testified that he addressed, a process that took until December of 2018, another
passage of five months ("the latter five months").
Respondents' focus on the latter five months is crucial toward their argument, but the
latter five months strikes the Court as less decisive given the five months Respondents
themselves took from DOB's order in February of 2018 until the submission of the PW1
application. Furthermore, the significance of the latter five months declines in the
context of six-and-a-half years from January of 2012 through the July of 2018 when
Respondents made no effort to seal the roof and the facade.
The PW1 application foundered on DOB's demand for a CONH, a demand that
Respondents now argue was incorrect, citing 28 R.C.NY §10-02. The regulation,