premises' condition when they bought it. Moreover, the evidence does not necessarily
support Respondents' assertion, as the photo image of the subject premises in 2009 does
not show the kind of damage to the facades as they exhibited ten years later.
Even assuming arguendo that the subject premises was in poor shape in
2012, a landlord cannot escape responsibility for a building's precarious condition when
the landlord acquired the building, when the need to make repairs could have been
anticipated before the purchase. 128 Hester LLC v. NY State Div. of Hous. & Cmty.
Renewal, 146 AD3d 706, 707 (1st Dept. 2017), citing Eyedent,
supra, 150 AD2d at 205, Lamberty, supra, 2013 N.Y.L.J. LEXIS
at 7380. To this point, Respondents did not rebut the testimony of the Apartment 8
tenant that, at the time Respondents bought the subject premises, the facade was buckling
and the common bathroom wall sustained a "gigantic" crack, conditions which a minimal
amount of diligence would have revealed. The condition of the subject premises at the
time Respondents purchased it therefore does not support their economic infeasibility
defense.
Even assuming that Respondents let the subject premises "decay beyond the point of
reasonable rehabilitation," Eyedent, supra,150 AD2d at 205, Respondents
argue that any such neglect did not cause the condition necessitating the Vacate Order, so
much as construction adjacent to the subject premises and its age and purportedly
defective design. If the record supported Respondents' argument, an economic
infeasibility defense would not amount to a "windfall" precluding an economic
infeasibility defense. Id.
Respondents' expert testified that it is possible that construction at the neighboring