bathroom, a floor joist, and defective plastered surfaces.
The Apartment 8 Tenant testified on redirect examination that he asked for a buyout
because he felt so beaten down; that violations that he complained about from 2016 to
2018 were the same conditions as violations from 2012; and that Respondent said that
the subject premises was going to be "shut down" and that Respondents were "working
on it."
Kenneth Robertson, another petitioner ("the Apartment 6 Tenant"), testified that he
lived at apartment 6 at 221 for twenty-one years before the issuance of the Vacate Order;
that, in 2011, the subject premises was only half-full; that Respondents did not rent
apartments when the tenants there died or moved out; that there were floods in the
subject premises every time it rained or snowed; that he saw ceilings collapse at the end
of a hallway; that he observed soggy wood in the third and fourth floors; that
Respondents did not do anything to abate flooding, like patch the ceiling; that he went
with the Super to the roof with buckets of tar and rolls of paper to try to patch where
water was entering from roof; that he rarely complained to Respondents; that he once
saw Respondents' workers putting plaster on cracks in walls; that about three or four
months before the Vacate Order issued, Respondent repeatedly asked him what he
wanted; and that Respondent said that if he did not do something, that the City would
"come in and do the job for [them]."
The Apartment 6 Tenant testified on Respondents' cross-examination that he never
called HPD; that he knows the Super and witnessed the Super making repairs; that he
never asked the Super to make repairs; that he did not complain about the ceiling
collapsing in his apartment; and that when Respondent asked him what he wanted, he