Hoist at former Deutsche Bank building had broken door and brake. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation hired Regional Scaffolding and Hoisting Co. and Safeway Environmental Corp. to assemble exterior scaffolding on the former Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street in Manhattan. Aside from the scaffolding, the joint venture was also hired to install a hoist for personnel and material. Lower Manhattan Development hired Bovis to deconstruct the building after the joint venture completed its work, and Bovis agreed to assume responsibility for the maintenance of the hoist once Bovis accepted the joint venture’s work. After the work was completed, an officer from Buildings observed a defective car door and machine brake on the hoist, and issued Regional a notice of violation for failing to maintain the hoist in a safe manner.

At a hearing, Regional argued that it could not be found liable for the violation because Lower Manhattan Development was the owner of the premises and that the joint venture, not Regional, contracted to install the hoist. Regional claimed that the maintenance responsibility for the hoist had already transferred to Bovis at the time of the NOV. Buildings countered that Regional was a proper party because it was the applicant of record for the hoist installation permit. The ALJ agreed with Regional and dismissed the NOV, finding that Lower Manhattan Development was the owner of the premises. (more…)

9/11 victims’ families sought to preserve North Tower’s footprint. Family members of victims of the World Trade Center attack formed a coalition to represent and express their views on the plans for a memorial at the site. In January 2004 the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation selected a memorial design, which included the preservation of some portions of the North Tower’s slab floor, most commonly referred to as “the footprint.” In March 2004, after the site was designated eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the LMDC entered into a programmatic agreement that set forth the project’s historic preservation requirements subject to consultation. The agreement, which was distributed to the Coalition, stated that the slab floor was not one of the historic elements the LMDC would try to preserve. Finally, in June 2004, the LMDC issued a decision, which stated that it had complied with the review requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act.

On March 11, 2006, the Coalition filed an article 78 petition, claiming that the LMDC had failed to fulfill the consultation and mitigation requirements relating to the plans’ impact on the slab floor in the Public Buildings Law and Parks, Recreation, Conservation and Historic Preservation Law. They further claimed that the slab floor was sacred ground; it should be preserved in its entirety and should be visible without obstruction. (more…)