Legal letter regarding premises liability case, January 2012

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

80. DePictro was within the city when the decision was made to declare an Emergency

Condition as described below, and the relevant City and agency officials were well aware

of his whereabouts.

81. Employees of the City and its agencies, including HPD, knew DePietro's telephone number, and easily could have contacted him to arrange for proper personal service of a notice.

82. The City and its agencies did not post any notice in a conspicuous place on the Property as required under Administrative Code Section 26-244(d) if an owner cannot be found within the city after diligent search.

83. DePietro was not afforded an opportunity to be heard.

84. Upon information and belief, a survey was performed on the Property on November 28, 2007, however only one inspector appeared, rather than the three inspectors required under Administrative Code Section 26-238(a). This survey was not posted on the Property as required by Administrative Code Section 26-238(b).

85. The corporation counsel of the City of New York did not place the survey of the Premises and the notice before the justice holding a special term of the court named in the notice, as required under Administrative Code Section 26-239(a).

86. The court did not issue a precept directed to the superintendent requiring the demolition of the Property, as required under Administrative Code Section 26-239(d). 87. Upon information and belief, the HPD superintendent did not make a determination to seal the Property and did not provide written notice to DePietro, under Administrative Code Section 26-240(a).

14

NYC-WTC 000159379