Adolfo Carrión, Jr. hired architect for private job at same time architect worked on project that Carrión later recommended for approval. Hugo Subotovsky worked as an architect on a Bronx development project known as Boricua Village. Atlantic Development Group LLC was the developer, and Peter Fine, one of Atlantic’s principals, was part of the team seeking City approval for the project through the City’s land use review process. Subotovsky was also part of this team. During the approval process, then-Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión, Jr. asked Fine, his friend, about hiring an architect for renovation work on his home. Fine suggested Carrión speak to Subotovsky, and Carrión later hired him to do the work. Carrión did not know of Subotovsky’s involvement in Boricua Village, but knew him as an architect that had worked on other projects that were submitted to the Bronx Borough President’s office for review.

Subotovsky performed the architectural work for Carrión, and the Department of Buildings issued the corresponding work permits on January 21, 2007. On or about January 22, 2007, the Boricua Village project was sent to Carrión’s office for review, and Carrión recommended its conditional approval. Carrión paid the builders after the initial work was completed, but Subotovsky did not issue a bill at this time. Subotovsky sent Carrión a bill about two years later, after the Daily News investigated the matter and after Carrión obtained a final survey.  (more…)

Distinction between basement and cellar explained. The Department of Buildings issued Supreme Company LLC a notice of violation for failing to file a required report concerning the periodic inspection of the exterior walls of its building at 1659 York Avenue in Manhattan’s Upper East Side. Supreme contested the NOV at a hearing before an ALJ, claiming that it was exempt from the filing requirement since its building did not exceed six stories. Supreme’s architect stated that the certificate of occupancy showed that the building had six stories plus a cellar. Buildings claimed the lowest floor was not a cellar, but rather a basement.

Pursuant to the City’s Building Code, cellars were not counted as stories when measuring the height of a building. Basements, on the other hand, were counted as stories. The Building Code defined “cellar” as a portion of a building that is partly or wholly underground and has one-half or more of its clear height below the grade plane. “Basement” was defined as a story partly below the grade plane and having less than one-half its clear height below the grade plane.  (more…)

Owner argued that party wall defects resulted from the neighbor’s demolition. A Department of Buildings inspector observed loose stucco along a parapet and stress cracks along the exterior wall of a brownstone, located at 130 East 35th Street. Buildings issued a notice of violation to the brownstone’s owner Joseph Lipton.

At the hearing, Lipton argued that the adjacent property owner was responsible for repairing the defects, not him, because the wall was a shared party wall and all the defects lay on the neighbor’s side. Lipton also claimed that the neighbor’s actions caused the defects since the neighbor exposed the party wall when, 20 years earlier, the neighbor demolished the original brownstone to make way for a large 18-story apartment building. At that time, according to Lipton, the neighbor failed to permanently protect the newly exposed portion of the wall in violation of an Administrative Code requirement. (more…)

Buildings’ suspension of license pending criminal trial overturned by OATH. On October 29, 2008, Testwell Laboratories, a licensed concrete testing laboratory, and V. Reddy Kancharla, a licensed site safety manager, were indicted on charges of enterprise corruption, grand larceny, scheme to defraud, offering a false instrument for filing, and falsifying business records. The next day, the Department of Buildings imposed pre-hearing suspensions on both, claiming that their conduct created imminent jeopardy to the public safety. Subsequently, Buildings filed a petition to suspend Testwell and Kancharla’s licenses, participation in the self-certification program, and professional filing privileges until the criminal case was resolved. Buildings claimed that Testwell and Kancharla violated the construction code by making materially false statements, participating in fraudulent dealings, and demonstrating negligence, incompetence, or disregard of the code. Buildings submitted only the indictment as evidence for the suspensions.

OATH ALJ Tynia Richard dismissed the charges, ruling that an indictment was not grounds for license suspension under the construction code and could not be considered evidence to prove the allegations. Even if considered evidence, the indictment could not provide the standard of proof required at OATH for license suspensions. Finally, Richard found that Buildings was authorized to suspend licenses and self-certification privileges prior to a hearing for no more than five days provided there was a finding of imminent jeopardy. Buildings was not authorized, however, to suspend the professional filing privileges without a hearing. (more…)

Building owner inspected facade after allotted time. Beginning in 1980, owners of buildings taller than six stories were required to conduct a critical examination of their buildings’ facade every five years. Each five-year cycle required submission of a technical report following examination. In February 1999, the Department of Buildings accepted the last of the fourth round technical reports. Building owner J.T. Tai Co., Inc. conducted a facade examination in December 1999 for its property at 246 East 46th Street in Manhattan, and filed the accompanying technical report in January 2000, which Buildings accepted as a fifth round report. Since J.T. failed to submit a report based on an examination conducted within the fourth cycle, Buildings charged J.T. with failing to file a fourth round report in violation of the Administrative Code. An ALJ sustained the violation.

Six months later, Buildings again issued a Notice of Violation to J.T. for failing to file the fourth round report. An ALJ dismissed the violation, deciding that J.T.’s failure to file a fourth round report was not a continuing violation. The ALJ determined that Buildings did not rebut J.T.’s contention that it was precluded from filing a fourth round report. (more…)