Respondents' engineer testified on Petitioners' cross-examination that there was such
intense damage to flooring that many systems would need to be replaced; that such
damage would have taken a years of deterioration and neglect to develop; that plans he
had submitted to [*8]DOB had an estimate of $891,000, a
rough estimate, with no contractor pricing or bids; that it would be possible to legally
reinstall the stairway with winders in the subject premises; that he thought that egress
could be legally maintained; and that there would be no way to install a straight staircase
in the subject premises without losing SRO units.
Respondents' engineer testified on DOB's cross-examination that he relied on an
iteration of the Building Code pre-dating 1968 in formulating his plans; that he saw one
of the front facades in 2016; that he saw deficiencies in front facade; that he indicated to
Respondents and what he thought the issues were, to wit, brick movement in the front;
that he did not file plans to address brick movement; that he prepared plans for
stabilization of the subject premises, requiring extensive interior shoring and bracing of
the front wall; that he observed the front facades in May of 2018; that he did not
remember how it compared with 2016; that the cause of the facade problem is that the
front wall lacks structural tie backs from the original installation and mortar has severely
deteriorated over 100 years; that, when asked about evidence of pointing or other exterior
work, he observed what might have been minor repairs; that, in 2018, the extent of
damage to the facade was not visible; that such damage was caused by binding material
between the bricks; that, in May of 2018, he observed that an undesirable deflection in