separations in other buildings. Respondents' expert also testified that fracturing in wood
joists "could" be caused by flaws in their original construction, but also that rot and
decay in the floor joists resulted from long-term water damage, as water exposure causes
fungi growth, which eats away at wood. Respondents' expert testified that water can also
cause some issues with masonry as well, especially in colder climates, as masonry is
porous and thus absorbs water, which can lead to a cycle of water freezing in the winter
and thawing in the summer, eventually stressing the masonry to the point that spalling
and cracking ensues. Respondents' expert's testimony as such is consistent with DOB's
expert's testimony that water penetration broke the mortar bond between the veneer and
the backup of the facade, citing the same cycle involving water freezing and thawing
over the years. Respondent's expert also testified that if the roof was repaired at the end
of its useful life, it would have prolonged the life of the subject premises.
DOB's expert testified that the wood-to-wood connections loosen over time and
cause visible movement, which could conceivably jibe with Respondents' expert's
testimony that characteristics of the original design of the subject premises were the
cause of defects in the facade. DOB's expert also testified, however, that such movement
has no meaning regarding structural capacity.
The age of the subject premises poses a challenge to Respondents' narrative of the
purportedly defective design of the subject premises. The preponderance of the evidence
shows that the subject premises dates back to at least 1854. Respondents essentially
posit that in the 165 years from 1854 to 2019, the subject premises' fatally defective