inches; that brownstone is displaced as well; that there is a lot of cracking of masonry on
the front of windowsills; that the cornice is in disrepair and in a state of collapse; that the
rear wall is bowing, bulging, cracking, and pulling away from the rest of the subject
premises; that there is significant evidence of water damage throughout the subject
premises, including the ceiling, plaster, and wood lathe areas at the rear of the first floor
of 219; that framing has collapsed; that the roof and the joists throughout have
deteriorated; that long-term water damage caused rot and decay of the floor joists; that
the front and rear wall issues are not moisture related, but a by-product of how walls
were constructed, with facades built across party walls, which requires that they be tied to
party walls; that the masonry between the front facade and party walls were tied together,
but in bunches, resulting in a very weak bond between those two walls, causing
separations over time, displacement that is not related to water; that he recommends that
front and rear facades be completely removed and rebuilt; that wood framing be removed
and replaced; that he did not come up with an estimate because that opens up the issue of
the stairs and affects the number of joists to be replaced; that the masonry in 219 needs
repair; that the cornice needs to be rebuilt; that there are newer buildings on both sides of
the subject premises, construction of which could have put the subject premises at risk;
that he is worried about differential settlement in a brick masonry building which is
brittle and weak in tension; that the amount of damage depends on how the masonry is
tied; that the joists were either overloaded or a defect caused it to split; that he noticed