observed plaster on the walls damaged to varying degrees; that such damage is a
nonstructural safety hazard; that there is a bulge in the facade between 221 and 223; and
that there is evidence of a long term leak at the location of leaders, maybe coming from a
front parapet or a damaged scupper.
DOB introduced into evidence a Google image of the facades of the subject premises
from May of 2009. DOB's expert testified that the paint in that photo is in good
condition; that the paint from 2009 is intact at the junction of 219 and 221, compelling
the conclusion that the bulge between 221 and 223 is not ordinary, but the result of a
leak; that the bulging faces inward; that the veneer brick is separated from backup brick,
such that you can see daylight between the veneer brick and the backup brick; that the
bricks are not tied together well, just at windowsills and window heads; that the bulging
is a potentially dangerous structural problem; that water penetration broke the mortar
bond between the veneer and the backup; that a little bit of outward movement of the
veneer creates a gap that accelerates over time as water collects there, through
freeze-and-thaw action; that the wall is five or ten years from collapse by the time it is
visible, which can be triggered by a passing storm; that buildings of this era were built
using lime mortar which is soluble in water, so a bulging of this age is more vulnerable
to a lack of maintenance than a modern building; that, other than shoring, he saw no
evidence of maintenance; that the area of the bulge extends into spandrel panels; and that
the rear facade had a similar bulge, again around juncture between 221 and 223.
DOB's expert testified that a basic maintenance program that would maintain the