DESCRIPTION OF FORENSIC ENGINEERING WORK
Here are some examples of my work:
With the South Ozone Park case while I was working for Clarke & Rapuano, Inc.,
I prepared the drainage report that was the basis of the plaintiffs’ case against
New York City, Perez Interboro Asphalt (the Contractor on the project) and
Vollmer Associates (engineering firm retained by the City as the Construction
Manager)(Gary M. Darche, et al., v. City of New York, Perez Interboro Asphalt
and Vollmer Associates). The residents of the area alleged that the construction
of a cross-connection of two outfall sewers created a condition whereby their
homes were flooded and severely damaged by a huge rainstorm that hit the New
York City area on June 30, 2004. While I was not allowed to testify at the trial
(company policy was for only senior officers to appear in court), I was essentially
a member of the legal team for the plaintiffs as I sat in on the trial and listened to
the testimony from the defendants’ witnesses and provided pointed questions for
the plaintiffs’ attorneys to ask in cross-examination. The trial outcome was a
verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. A second case involving the residents of
Springfield Gardens in Queens (right next to South Ozone Park) came out a few
years later, based on the same storm and with essentially the same constructionrelated flooding. When the City Comptroller was advised that I was going to be
involved with this new case, he decided to call for settlement talks instead of a
trial, which resulted in a sizeable award to the area residents.
A third case with Clarke & Rapuano centered around an allegation that the
Village of Walden, NY created a drainage situation that caused a loading dock in
a mall alongside the Wallkill Creek to flood during a severe rainstorm, which also
flooded the business and ruined merchandise. Field investigations conducted by
myself as well as a review of the field reports by Village personnel uncovered the
fact that the loading dock’s trench drain was partially silted up, but was also
covered with discarded packing cardboard boxes. The storm drains were also
discovered not to be built in conformance with the approved site plan for the mall.
The case never made it to trial.
While working for E. I. Associates, I was handed a project file for a project on
Hope Road in Tinton Falls, NJ for UPS. The firm had designed the site plan for
the building, which included a combined exit and entrance driveway for the site to
Hope Road. An elderly woman driving northward on Hope Road mistakenly tried
to turn left into the exit driveway to the site. As she swerved to avoid a truck
exiting the site, she was struck head-on by another vehicle traveling southbound
on the same road. Even though sun glare was a contributing factor in the
accident (I took pictures of the scene on a sunny day, which happened to be the
same weather conditions that day and at approximately the same time of the
day), the plaintiff argued that the entrance driveway was improperly designed,
thereby being the primary cause of the accident. By reviewing the files, I
discovered a letter from the Monmouth County Engineer’s office ordering E. I.
Associates to delete a traffic island from the driveway, or the plans would not be
approved. Had the island been constructed as shown on the original plans,
signage would have clearly directed the drivers to the appropriate parts of the
driveway. E. I. Associates was dismissed from the case.
With Amertech Engineering, Inc., I was the engineer providing expert testimony
and review of a claim made against the Franklin Memorial Cemetery in North
Brunswick, NJ. An adjoining property owner claimed that the cemetery had
negligently placed fill on its property that directed stormwater runoff onto his
property, flooding his house and causing property damage. By reviewing the
report prepared by the expert witness that he had retained, I discovered that
there were several glaring inconsistencies contained in it. In addition, I also
found out that the person who prepared the report was not a licensed
professional engineer, though the report did in fact contain several statements
either directly or indirectly implying that the author was a licensed professional
engineer. Couple that together with the fact that he was in the middle of a
contested divorce, and his future ex-wife had no knowledge of the lawsuit (she
was still listed on the deed), the plaintiff folded his tent and agreed to a
substantially reduced cash settlement.
As an employee of Amertech Engineering, Inc., I was the expert witness for a
group of citizens that were objecting to a proposed subdivision in Raritan
Township in New Jersey. Besides pointing out questionable drainage
calculations and other design assumptions made by the firm designing the
project, I also went on the record with the objectors’ attorney to note that the
developer had illegally constructed a sanitary sewer to service the site. This
work required a permit from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (Treatment Works Approval – Sewer Extension Permit). While we
initially felt that the Planning Board was going to vote in favor of the project due
to political pressure and the fact that the Township was going to have a road built
that would connect two important roadways, the Board eventually voted against
the project. There have been no attempts by the developer to appeal the Board’s
decision.
While I was working for Macdel, Inc., I was approached by a client (Edward
Chua) to handle a case brought against him by a contractor he had hired to work
on a two-story building he was having built in Queens, NY. The contractor in
question was responsible for steel erection at the site. When he noticed that the
beam pockets in the concrete foundation walls had not been properly sited and
constructed, he negotiated a $40,000 change order with Mr. Chua to correct the
problem. After apparently completing the steel work, he left the job site and
requested payment. The mason returned to pour the lightweight concrete floors
for the second story of the building, only to find that the steel for the second story
“dogleg” section of the tee-shaped building was two inches higher than the front
section. He requested a change order in the amount of $20,000 to install missing
drip edges (contains concrete on the supporting floor panels) and to add an
additional 2” of lightweight concrete to the front section of the building. When the
steel contractor requested full payment of his initial $40,000 change order, Mr.
Chua informed him of the problems that the mason had to correct, and that he
was going to back-charge him the $20,000 for the work. The steel contractor
then sued Mr. Chua for the $40,000. In court, the decision rested on the steel
contractor’s actions at the site. I testified that the steel contractor had properly
notified Mr. Chua about the problems with the beam pockets in the foundation
wall, and a change order was agreed to for his costs to do the work. However,
he failed to notice that there was a difference in floor elevations on the second
floor. Despite plaintiff’s attorney trying to get me to testify to hypothetical
situations, I just reminded him of the facts. Even though the judge asked me if
the front of the building might have been two inches lower than the rear dogleg, I
told him that it made no difference. I pointed to a portion of the contract drawings
which clearly stated that a contractor working on the project had a direct duty to
report anything regarding the constructability of the building to the project owner.
While he was able to point out the error with the beam pockets, he obviously
could not see his own mistakes. The judge sided with the steel contractor, but
limited his award to only $20,000, which was half of his change order. In
essence, my client still won.