Newsday Monday, 10th July 2006, 12:32 PM EDT
At least 11 hurt in building collapse [34 East 62nd Street]
By Wil Cruz, Lauren Johnston and Chuck Bennett
"Firefighters work to contain the remains of a fire Monday, July 10, 2006 in New York. A four-story building on Manhattan's Upper East Side went up in flames and collapsed Monday after a thunderous explosion that rocked the upscale neighborhood. Authorities said the apparent cause was a gas explosion and that a suicide attempt was being investigated." (AP Photo) Jul 10, 2006
"New York City Firefighters spray water on the rubble of a upper east side three-story building housing doctors' offices that collapsed and burned 10 July 2006, after what witnesses said was a thunderous explosion that rocked the neighborhood just off Madison Avenue, in New York. An apparent gas explosion and fire caused the collapse." (Getty Images) Jul 10, 2006
When I saw this today, I shuttered at the thought that this could have been a building some 18 years ago on Manhattan's upper eastside where I lived. The building's landlord/builder/owner at that time was a reputed Mafioso type from the Bronx and described as "not a gentleman" by incredible understatement. One Saturday night about 9:00 pm there was a tremendous KaBoooom! which shook the building violently. Those of us at home went out into the street to see that the Fire Department next door (an Engine and Ladder Company) already had the street taped off. The explosion had shattered windows and blew out manhole covers, but very fortunately that was the extent of the damage.
Up to this point I had been smelling gas in the lift and inside the building as well as outside even on the street behind the building when the wind blew that way. After the explosion, the gas smell returned a few days later. I called Consolidated Edison (the gas and electric utility in Manhattan) about the gas smell. The man who arrived shutdown the natural gas coming into the building because of incomplete combustion in the boiler. We had no idea that the landlord had recently switched the boiler from fuel oil to natural gas. It was a duel purpose boiler that could use either fuel. The landlord was then required to make certain it was put right before the gas could be turned on again for heat and hot water in the building.
This was a small building of some seven stories with 21 efficiency/studio flats and two duplex penthouses on top. However, the Certificate of Occupancy filed with the Building's Department described a building with only 18 residential units and no penthouses on top. I learned this quite be accident when I was at the Building's Department inspection office one day and asked just as I was leaving a question about a penthouse in terms of a possible building violation. The inspector on duty paused and asked me to repeat the address of the building I was describing. After I did, he said that there was no record of penthouse flats in this building. He then advised me how to obtain a copy of the Certificant of Occupancy for the building which I did. I was stunned because I knew this was a critically important document and meant that corruption was far deeper than I had uncovered up to that point.
Up to that point I had only learned after living there for two years that I was living in what was calld an Illusionary Sublet in a rent stablised building. When I had filed a complaint with the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), I learned that the estate agent in the office on the ground floor actually sublet two flats in the building at a profit to the public at the current market rate. This would be fine if it was not a rent stabilised building.
I was subjected to harassment in order to get me out and filed a harassment complaint with the special DHCR Harassment unit in downtown Manhattan obtaining a hearing in a matter of weeks. Because I was judged to be in an Illusionary Sublet, I was awarded the lease to the flat and entitled to triple liability payment of the amount of rental overcharge I paid which was some $6,000 over two years. Although I obtained the lease to the flat, I never collected the triple liabiltiy overcharge ($18,000) to which I was entitled under the law. This is another part of the story to be described later.
The harassssment laws are in place to protect tenants in the kind of situation in which I found myself so that they could obtain proper legal redress against the landlord to protect themselves in their homes. Invariably the unscrupulous landlord doing this kind of unlawful activity would begin to wage a harssment campaign against a tenant who started complaining to drive him/her out in order to stop the complaint and intimidate others into silence. This is why an instant response was possible from the special DHCR Harassment Unit because they realised speed was of the essence in such situations. However, this situation turned out to be far, far worse than just two flats leased to the landlord's crony estate agent for her to sublet to the public at a profit.
As it turned out, the landlord was skimming from the building's extra flats that went unreported in the documents on file with New York City. This building was part of what was called a 421A tax abatement programme where the landlard would get a partial tax abatement for ten years if he put a renovated building under the Rent Stablisation programme. This was supposed to provide a subsidised incentive for a landlord to reconstruct buildings and provide the units to the public at a stablised rate in an environment where housing was virtually nonexistent and rents were soaring. That's why there was sufficient incentive to sublet a rent stablised flat at the market rate which also explains why the legal consequences for doing so were so strict which provided for loss of the lease and a triple damages fraud penalty. The law provided for subletting but under strick condtions to preserve the character and intent of rent stabilisation.
I had the Building's Department Certifiant of Occupancy, but this did not provide me with the information relating to the basic rentals of the flats in the building. I sensed that there was a further overcharge based upon the fact that there were only 18 flats officially in place where in reality there were 23. Because I was having difficulty collecting the Illusionary Sublet rental overcharge through the DHCR, I filed suit in New York's Civil Court to recover my loss and triple liabilty damages. New York City at that time had a special Civil Court where the actually small claims limit was $25,000, but most pople did not know about this. I handled all my own legal proceedings for very good reasons of corruption. Because I had a civil suit in progress I was able to obtain two more key documents which were not available to the public. These were available by subpoena, but fortunately for me a clerk just gave me copies because of my civil suit.
The two additional documents I was able to obtain as a result of court proceedings were the Rent Roll and the Certificate of Eligibility. The first established the initial rental for each residential unit, and the second established the owner and building's eligibility for a partial tax abatement under the section 421A programme. The initial rents were apportioned among the residential rental units based upon a set amount per room as defined in the Certificate of Eligibility including renovation costs plus a landlord profit per room. This was then computed for each residential unit on the Rent Roll which along with the Certificate of Eligibility listed only 18 residential units in line with the Certificte of Occupancy. The Rent Roll, however, reflected two penthouse units and other differences from the Certificate of Occupancy. Even the documentation filed with New York City was inconsistent and contradictory with each other. These documents revealed extensive corruption and most likely considerable payoffs which the landlord could afford by his actions here.
When I included the five flats which were not listed in the Rent Roll initially, the landlord was taking in rent on a monthly basis that was $2,670.00 more than he was entitled, and annually he was skimming $32,040.00 apparently tax free or some 22% above the actual amount he should have been receiving as provided and determined under the law. On top of this he was getting a partial tax abatement for ten years on the 18 units, and the rents were all rising according to law as provided by the Rent Stabilisation programme. This was just at the start, and remember two of those flats were leased to the real estate agent on the ground floor who then sublet them at market rates on an ongoing basis to the public. I was paying two levels of rental overcharge one of which I addressed, and the other came later when I stumbled onto it.
If the Rent Roll had been initially established on the basis of the actual 23 residential units, presumably the costs plus profit would have been allocated across a wider base with the intial rents being less than they were at the start. The whole point was to provide the public with decent, renewed housing at a reasonable rent which was being subverted in every possible way for unlawful gain by criminal means by this landlord and the estate agent on the upper eastside of Manhatten. This was not the only building owned by this landlord like this. There were a several others, and eventually this landlord had a some dozen or so residential bildings on Manhattan's upper eastside. It's easy to see how he financed his operation. This was one of his first buildings.
I spent years addressing this problem and others associated with this buiildng's management by this landlord. I went to some 14 local, state and federal agencies, electec officials and courts. All the tenants were due a rebate from the rental overcharges. Further, since the building was undermanaged with extensive harassment carried out on a large scale for years, there were questions of rent rebates for the failure to deliver essential services. Needless to say, this landlord knew all that I was doing by the proceedings I instituted against him through public agencies and the courts. Manhattan also had a special Landlord & Tenant Court as did each borough in New York City.
Filing false documents with the City of New York is a felony, and I took this to various law enforcement agencies at all levels including Manhattan's District Attorney, the Attorney General for New York State, the FBI and the then US Attorney for the Sourther Distict of New York who was Rudolf Guiliani subsequently to become New York City's Mayor. You might say that I got direct "feedback" on a personal basis, but that's an incredible story for another time. When I saw this blown up building on Manhattan's upper eastside today, I was reminded that this might have been the building where I lived including all the tenants who lived there. I believe that the change to gas in the boiler along with incomplete combustiion were not an accident. I believe that the resulting explosion could have been like this building today.
One of my neighbours who also smelled the natural gas in the building had gone to the landlord's management office to report the problem. Nothing came of it. They evidently didn't think there was a problem. They should have known that the boiler had been recently changed from fuel oil to natural gas and been alert to any possile problems, but evidently those in the mnagement office were ignorant of this fact. This landlord had a penchant for doing things his own way disregarding the law, regulations and rules along with the building code which was quite explicit as regards to protecting the health and safety of everyone.
After the natural gas had been closed down by Consolidated Edison and was subsequently restored, the landlord changed boilers without abiding by the regulations for doing so. He was supposed to file notice of such a change and post it publicly. When the work was actually carried out, the plumber was supposed to post his qualifications and certification for carrying out such work. None of this existed. When I came downstairs on the day that the boiler was being replaced, I went to Building's Department to check on rules and reglations including inspections in order to ensure that our lives would not be placed in jeopardy again. When these were explained to me, the only thing I could do was to file a complaint.
On one trip out of the building later that day, I ran into a Sanitation Department inspector who had tracked the incredible trail of rust mud from the gutter and kerb, across the pavement, down the stairs and into the building where I ran into her. She ssked me about it, and I explained what was happening. She then proceeded to write up a summons the landlard for making an incredible mess outside on the public pavement. I was delightd that someone was doing her job properly to keep things functioning well and wrote a complimentary letter to the Sanitation Commissioner about her. I received a nice thank you letter from him describing the fact that had personally called her in to compliment her for doing a good job in the community.
Given all my experience during the years I spent in this building I have little doubt that the landlord tried to blow it up with natural gas to cover up his crime and corruption which I had exposed. If you look at the complete destruction of this building today in the photos above, you will see why he would take such a drastic step to destroy the evidence against him which was in bricks and morter. I will be discussing the other acts carried out by this landlord which left little doubt in my mind that he wouldn't hesitate to blow up this building to hide his crimes. I will also be comparing and contrasting my experience during the 1980s with this Manhattan landlord against my more recent experince of the past decade here in London since I have a direct experience in each instance which enables me to be able to do so on a first hand basis. I believe the isues involved to be profound in the overall context of society's management.
Associated Press Monday 10th July 2006, 04:55 PM
Suicide Attempt Probed in NYC Collapse
By Adam Goldman
http://www.forbes.com/business/services/feeds/ap/2006/07/10/ap2868972.html