July 2, 2019 to evaluate occupancy and egress; that he placed the Vacate Order as a result
of that inspection; that the front facade was bulging between 221 and 223 from the roof
to the first floor; that the front facade had a diagonal crack in the walls from the roof to
the first floor; that he did not see evidence of pointing or maintenance of the front or rear
facades; that the rear facades of 219 and 223 had diagonal cracks; that a reconstruction of
the front facade is required; that there was no proper drainage, to wit, a missing
leader;[FN2]
that a stair was leaning; that roof joists and floors were sagging; that some floor joists
that belonged to the first floor framing were rotten and unsupported in the bearing walls;
and that plaster inside the subject premises was cracked.
The DOB director testified on Respondents' cross-examination that the facade was
stabilized in August 2019; that diagonal cracking he saw in this case warranted repair;
that, in February of 2019, he observed a partial collapse of the rear wall; that he thinks
that the entire facade needs to be replaced; that factors that lead to a vacate order can be
cumulative; that the [*2]condition of the facade alone, the
condition of the stairs alone, and the sagging floors alone would have been sufficient to
warrant a vacate order; that he issued the Vacate Order not knowing the condition of the
joists, but he saw that floors were sagging, which is a structural issue; that he could not
see a lot of conditions because they are behind finishing; and that the subject premises is
150 years old, which he knows from historic tax maps.
The DOB director testified on redirect examination that DOB did not impose a
specific remedy and that the violations do not require the complete replacement of front