million seven years later and so dramatically fail to maintain it? Respondents
conspicuously refrained from renting units when they became vacant to the point where
only 6 of the 48 units were occupied. Respondents attempted to buy out anyone left in
the subject premises. When asked why Respondents bought the subject premises in the
first place, the Property Manager testified, "it's real estate in Manhattan." Respondents
clearly wanted the subject premises vacant so they could demolish it and develop the
property to be something more lucrative than a rent-stabilized SRO. Given the nature of
this matter, the Court need not judge such a business plan except to the extent that
deferring maintenance of the subject premises advanced Respondents' end.
Notably, Respondents did not rebut the testimony of the Apartment 8 Tenant that
Respondent said that he should take a buyout because the subject premises was going to
be shut down anyway or the Apartment 6 Tenant that Respondent said that the City was
going to "do [*16][Respondents'] job" for them,
presumably meaning something like the Vacate Order.
The record shows the results. Photographs in evidence depict the distressed state of
the subject premises. Respondents' expert testified that the facades are in a "severe" state
of deterioration and collapse, and that rot and decay in the floor joists resulted from
long-term water damage. The Appraisal — procured by Respondents —
states that the subject premises is in a poor condition reflecting "deferred maintenance,"
which is consistent with DOB's expert's statement that the deferred maintenance is
"apparent." DOB's expert's report adds that the damage observed demonstrates
"long-term neglect," particularly with regard to water damage, which is also consistent