buildings could have damaged the subject premises, but he did not know anything
specific that happened there. DOB's expert's report stated that the available records did
not show any construction adjacent to the subject premises since 1938. The
preponderance of the evidence on this record therefore does not show that construction
adjacent to the subject premises caused any of the conditions necessitating the Vacate
Order.
Respondents' expert challenged the proposition that water damage caused problems
in the subject premises. Specifically, he testified that the lack of a leader did not cause
damage and that water exposure did not cause the displacement observed in the subject
premises. Rather, Respondents' expert testified that the bulging he observed "plays back"
into the original construction of the subject premises. Respondents' expert and
Respondents' engineer testified that the front wall lacks structural tie backs from their
original installation, causing the facade problem as the mortar has severely deteriorated
over 100 years.
DOB's expert's testimony conflicted with that of Respondents' expert and
Respondents' engineer. DOB's expert testified that if the construction of the subject
premises was defective in the first instance, problems would have shown up a long time
ago. DOB's expert testified that the pattern of damage to the coating on the brick is
consistent with long term water exposure.
Reconciling the testimony of Respondents' and DOB's expert witnesses requires a
deeper scrutiny of their testimony. Respondents' expert testified that the original
construction of the subject premises did not bear a "robust connection" to the bulging in
the facades and that he had [*18]not seen similar visible