abatement, as he has a scope of recommended repairs in report and as damage has been
done at this point; that he did not see any effort made to tie back the facade to party walls
when it pulled away; that tie-backs at 219 would help; that the front facade at 221 and
223 is too far out to do anything with tie-backs; that there has been some maintenance
over the years to the rear facades, to wit, some stucco was placed over bricks and some
cracks were filled with mortar; that he does not know how long the damage has taken,
but it had been going for quite a while, likely years; that the pattern of damage in the
floor joists, some by water exposure, took a long time, although it may have been in
phases, depending on leak events that may have occurred; that repairing the plumbing
and the roof would have abated damage; that he did not observe foundation settlement;
that all windows are wood framed and in various levels of decay; and that peeled paint
and deteriorated wood demonstrate no recent signs of maintenance at least within the last
five years.
Respondents' expert testified on redirect examination that the age of a building
comes into play most to see how well it has been maintained and that materials in older
buildings age and degrade, such that older buildings require more maintenance.
The Court granted Respondents' application to qualify a construction consultant ("the
Construction Consultant") as an expert witness. The Construction Consultant testified
that he specializes in coming up with cost estimates for construction projects, particularly
those dealing with water damage; that he uses a proprietary pricing database called "RS
Means" to reap construction data; that he has been to the subject premises and worked