White Tab 108B — Olmsted Post‑PRV Inspection and Lab Results (Aug 10–18, 2021) — Tier‑1 Evidence Package¶
GUARDRAIL: WHITE — FACT REPOSITORY ONLY
This tab records what the email correspondence and Prestige EnviroMicrobiology lab reports state, when, and by whom. No argument, no inference, no calculation. Quotes kept to the minimum necessary for evidentiary precision. Analysis belongs in Purple; malpractice framing belongs in Orange.
A) Document Identification and Provenance¶
This tab consolidates a single evidentiary sequence spanning August 10–18, 2021: the email chain arranging Olmsted's post‑PRV inspection, the inspection itself, and the laboratory results delivered to counsel. The package consists of five source items:
-
Email chain (6 messages, Aug 10–12, 2021): File
Re__mold_work_2021-08-12T17_34_09-04_00.eml. Participants: Edward Olmsted (olmsted.mac@mac.com), Christian Gray (christiangray3@protonmail.com), Margaret Sandercock (mbs@goodfarblaw.com). -
Lab results forwarding email (Aug 18, 2021): File
Fwd__two_reports_for_97_Green_2021-08-18T10_04_26-04_00.eml. From: Olmsted. To: Sandercock, Gray. -
Prestige spore trap report (3 pages): File
210817-04__spore.pdf. Prestige EnviroMicrobiology report #210817‑04, Method P001 (Allergenco/spore trap). 6 air samples. -
Prestige direct exam report (2 pages): File
210817-04__direct_exam.pdf. Prestige EnviroMicrobiology report #210817‑04, Method P003 (bulk and tape lift). 7 samples. -
Chain of Custody (2 pages): File
Olmsted-210817-04.pdf. Prestige EnviroMicrobiology COC form. Signed by Edward Olmsted, CIH. Received by Julie Yang.
All five items relate to Prestige report #210817‑04. Samples were collected August 16, 2021; analysis was completed August 17, 2021; results were forwarded to counsel August 18, 2021.
Source Document Archive¶
Email Chain — Re: mold work (Aug 10–12, 2021)
Olmsted Lab Results Email (Aug 18, 2021)
Prestige Spore Trap Report #210817‑04
Prestige Direct Exam Report #210817‑04
Prestige Chain of Custody #210817‑04
B) Email Chain Reconstruction — "Re: mold work" (Aug 10–12, 2021)¶
Source file: Re__mold_work_2021-08-12T17_34_09-04_00.eml
The thread contains six messages in chronological order:
Message 1 — Olmsted to thread (Aug 10, 2021, 4:35 PM)¶
Edward Olmsted reports that he spoke with Jack Glass and Glass's assistant, who monitored the remediation work at 97 Greene Street. Olmsted states that Glass and his assistant indicated the work was done and all air tests were very low. Olmsted states he has not seen the results.
Olmsted further states that Glass and his assistant indicated the removal of the walls did not reveal much visible mold growth and that the shared wall with the neighbor in the two studios had no mold growth. He states that the probes were not cut into the neighbor wall in the living room because, according to Glass, there was nothing in the two studios.
Olmsted states: "When I was there I can corroberate that there was not much visible mold in the walls that were removed that I looked at. There was mold in the ceilings."
This message indicates Olmsted was physically present at the apartment during or shortly after the remediation work (Jul 20–27, 2021), before the ALC PRV inspection (Jul 28) and before the PRV report (Aug 3).
Message 2 — Christian Gray to Olmsted, cc Sandercock (Aug 11, 2021, 4:07 PM)¶
Christian Gray provides a room‑by‑room description of scope failures observed in the apartment. The email states:
- "They only did a fraction of the scope of work that we signed off on."
- Studio 1: "They removed the first layer of drywall in Studio 1, the middle studio, leaving the first layer of insulation. They didn't even get to the second wall system or the third wall in the case of the north wall, only then would they have gotten to the drywall and insulation of my unit's side of the party wall." Regarding the floor: "They only removed the bamboo flooring and the first layer of sub‑floor and there are still layers remaining." Regarding the ceiling: "They only removed the first layer of acoustic ceiling and left the insulation in." States: "The are no studs visible of any of the wall systems or the ceiling" and "The space smells of mold."
- Studio 2: "They only removed the first layer of drywall on the first wall and left most of the insulation in."
- Bathroom: "They left all of the raised floor system for the tub in place. It was supposed to be completely removed."
Gray states: "The job that they did does not cover the scope of work that all of the parties agreed upon. This is unacceptable."
Message 3 — Margaret Sandercock to thread (Aug 11, 2021, 4:32 PM)¶
Sandercock responds with three substantive points:
-
"First, we need Ed to inspect within 5 days from today." She notes Olmsted is "in the Virgin Islands working" and asks when he can return or send someone else.
-
"Christian, I can only forward your comments to the extent agreed with by Ed. What we are in fact supposed to submit is a response from Ed, not you, and test results."
-
"In my humble and quite likely uneducated opinion, I am not convinced the scope of work matters if the test results are good."
The statement "5 days from today" (Aug 11) indicates the ALC PRV had been delivered to Sandercock on or about August 11, 2021, triggering the stipulation's 5‑day Olmsted Inspection Deadline.
Message 4 — Olmsted to Christian Gray (Aug 12, 2021, 6:36 AM)¶
Olmsted proposes meeting at 97 Greene at 8:30 AM on Monday. He states: "I think Monday is going to be fraught with delays and I would like to get yours done first." August 12, 2021 was a Thursday; the following Monday was August 16, 2021.
Message 5 — Christian Gray to Olmsted (Aug 12, 2021, 11:09 AM)¶
Gray confirms: "I'll be there at 8:30am on Monday."
Message 6 — Olmsted to Christian Gray (Aug 12, 2021, 5:34 PM)¶
Olmsted responds: "ok."
C) Stipulation Timing — Inspection Window Compliance¶
The Stipulation of Settlement (HP 6086/2020) provides at Paragraph 5:
- Within 5 days ("Olmstead Inspection Deadline") of Respondent's counsel delivering the ALC Post Remediation Report to Petitioner's counsel, Olmsted shall inspect and test the apartment.
- Petitioner's counsel shall provide Respondent's counsel with a copy of the Olmsted Post Remediation Report within 14 days of the Olmstead Inspection Deadline.
Based on the email chain (Section B above):
| Stipulation Element | Date | Day Count | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALC PRV report issued | Aug 3, 2021 | — | WT‑108 |
| PRV delivered to Petitioner's counsel (Sandercock) | ~Aug 11, 2021 | Day 0 | Sandercock email: "5 days from today" |
| Olmsted inspection scheduled | Aug 12, 2021 | Day 1 | Olmsted email: "8:30 am on Monday" |
| Olmsted inspection conducted; 13 samples collected | Aug 16, 2021 | Day 5 | COC (signed, dated Aug 16) |
| Lab analysis completed | Aug 17, 2021 | Day 6 | Prestige reports (#210817‑04) |
| Olmsted forwards lab results + professional assessment to Sandercock | Aug 18, 2021 | Day 7 | Lab results email |
| 14‑day report deadline (from Day 5 inspection deadline) | ~Aug 30, 2021 | Day 19 | Stipulation Para. 5 |
| Formal written report (WT‑109) | Aug 18, 2022 | ~Day 372 | WT‑109 |
The 5‑day inspection window was met. Olmsted inspected on Day 5 (Aug 16, 2021). Substantive lab results and professional assessment were delivered to counsel on Day 7 (Aug 18, 2021). The formal narrative report (WT‑109) was not produced until approximately 12 months later.
Note on PRV delivery gap: The ALC PRV was issued August 3, 2021 (WT‑108) but was not delivered to Sandercock until approximately August 11. The cause of the 8‑day gap between issuance and delivery to Petitioner's counsel is not established by the documents in this tab.
D) Lab Results Forwarding Email (Aug 18, 2021)¶
Source file: Fwd__two_reports_for_97_Green_2021-08-18T10_04_26-04_00.eml
Inner email (forwarded): From Shawn Baker (shawn.baker@prestige-em.com) to Edward Olmsted, August 18, 2021 at 9:47 AM. Baker states: "Attached are a signed COC and two reports (#210817‑04) for three bulks, six Allergenco and four tape samples."
Outer email (forwarding): From Edward Olmsted to Margaret Sandercock and Christian Gray, August 18, 2021 at 10:04 AM. Olmsted's cover message states:
- "Lab results attached"
- "I'll work on report"
- "These results are terrible"
- "All the air samples have very elevated levels of pen‑asp spores"
- "That's not good"
- "Tape lifts all indicate mold growth"
- "They need to do the entire scope"
- "May need to include kitchen floor but we will see"
The email was sent from Olmsted's iPhone. Olmsted forwarded the lab results to counsel within 17 minutes of receiving them from the laboratory.
E) Prestige Lab Report #210817‑04 — Air Sampling (Allergenco/Spore Traps)¶
Source file: 210817-04__spore.pdf (3 pages)
Method: P001 — Analysis of Allergenco Samples for Total Fungal Structures by Optical Microscopy
Lab: Prestige EnviroMicrobiology, Inc., 242 Terrace Blvd., Suite B‑1, Voorhees, NJ 08043
Analyst: Theresa Lehman. Approved by: Theresa Lehman, MPH, Lab Director. Technical Manager: Chin S Yang, Ph.D.
Six samples collected August 16, 2021. All air volumes: 0.075 m³.
E.1) Outdoor Control (Sample 210817‑04‑025 / Client ID 4260534)¶
- Location: Outside
- Total: 7,600 structures/m³ | Background rating: 1
- Dominant species: basidiospores 3,500/m³ (46%), ascospores 2,000/m³ (27%), Cladosporium 1,300/m³ (17%)
- Pen/Asp‑like: 52/m³ (1%)
- Stachybotrys: not detected
E.2) Room 1 (Sample 210817‑04‑022 / Client ID 4257153)¶
- Location: Rm 1
- Total: 4,100 structures/m³ | Background rating: 3
- Pen/Asp‑like: 1,800/m³ (44%) — 35× outdoor control
- Chaetomium: 780/m³ (19%)
- Stachybotrys: not detected
E.3) Room 2 (Sample 210817‑04‑023 / Client ID 4257151)¶
- Location: Rm 2
- Total: 6,300 structures/m³ | Background rating: 4
- Pen/Asp‑like: 4,800/m³ (76%) — 92× outdoor control
- Stachybotrys: 52/m³ (1%) — DETECTED
E.4) Room 3 (Sample 210817‑04‑026 / Client ID 4257152)¶
- Location: Rm 3
- Total: 8,700 structures/m³ | Background rating: 4
- Pen/Asp‑like: 6,900/m³ (80%) — 133× outdoor control
- Stachybotrys: 52/m³ (1%) — DETECTED
E.5) Bathroom (Sample 210817‑04‑024 / Client ID 4257148)¶
- Location: Bathroom
- Total: 21,000 structures/m³ | Background rating: 5 (maximum)
- Pen/Asp‑like: 19,000/m³ (90%) — 365× outdoor control
- Stachybotrys: 440/m³ (2%) — DETECTED (highest indoor concentration)
E.6) Kitchen (Sample 210817‑04‑027 / Client ID 4260544)¶
- Location: Kitchen
- Total: 3,000 structures/m³ | Background rating: 4
- Pen/Asp‑like: 1,600/m³ (53%) — 31× outdoor control
- Stachybotrys: not detected
E.7) Air Sampling Summary Table¶
| Location | Total structures/m³ | Pen/Asp‑like/m³ | Pen/Asp % | vs. Outdoor | Background | Stachybotrys |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outside (control) | 7,600 | 52 | 1% | — | 1 | ND |
| Room 1 | 4,100 | 1,800 | 44% | 35× | 3 | ND |
| Room 2 | 6,300 | 4,800 | 76% | 92× | 4 | 52/m³ |
| Room 3 | 8,700 | 6,900 | 80% | 133× | 4 | 52/m³ |
| Bathroom | 21,000 | 19,000 | 90% | 365× | 5 | 440/m³ |
| Kitchen | 3,000 | 1,600 | 53% | 31× | 4 | ND |
Per the report footer: background rating 1–5 indicates density of sample deposit. Concentrations and percentages are rounded.
F) Prestige Lab Report #210817‑04 — Bulk and Tape Lift Samples¶
Source file: 210817-04__direct_exam.pdf (2 pages)
Method: P003 — Analysis of Bulk Samples / Tape‑Lift Samples for Fungi by Optical Microscopy
Analyst: Ching‑Yi Tsai, Ph.D. Approved by: Theresa Lehman, MPH, Lab Director. Technical Manager: Chin S Yang, Ph.D.
F.1) Bulk Samples (3 samples)¶
| Prestige # | Client ID | Location | Fungi Identified | Density | Coverage | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 210817‑04‑019 | 97G‑9 | Insulation on base of wall behind foam — Room 1 | Aspergillus (<1), Chaetomium (5), Trichoderma (1) | Multiple | ~95% | "mites, insects and their fecal matter observed" |
| 210817‑04‑020 | 97G‑6 | Bathroom floor under HW heater | unknown fungi (<1) | <1 | ~1% | Light fungal growth |
| 210817‑04‑021 | 97G‑7 | Room 1 wood floor | Acremonium/Gliomastix (2), Chaetomium (5) | Multiple | ~95% | "some fungal structures in fragments" |
Per the report: fungal density rating 1–5 (1 lowest, 5 highest) indicates density of fungal growth structures observed. Growth coverage is based on estimation of the entire bulk sample surface on all sides.
F.2) Tape Lift Samples (4 samples)¶
| Prestige # | Client ID | Location | Fungi Identified | Density | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 210817‑04‑028 | 97G‑3 | Ceiling wood deck | ND | NA | "Mostly dust and debris, no signs of fungal growth or contamination" |
| 210817‑04‑029 | 97G‑1 | Bathroom wall | Aspergillus (5), Stachybotrys (loose), unknown fungi (3) | Multiple | "mites, insects and their fecal matter observed" |
| 210817‑04‑030 | 97G‑4 | Room 2 wall | Acremonium/Gliomastix (3), Aspergillus (1), Chaetomium (5), Penicillium (<1), Trichoderma (1) | Multiple | "mites, insects and their fecal matter observed" |
| 210817‑04‑031 | 96G‑12 | Insulation Room 1 | Asp/Pen‑like (NA), Chaetomium (<1) | Light | "some fungal structures in fragments" |
G) Chain of Custody¶
Source file: Olmsted-210817-04.pdf (2 pages)
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Client name | Olmsted Environmental Services Inc. |
| Address | 1992 Route 9, Garrison, NY 10524 |
| Client project | 97 Green |
| Contact name | Edward Olmsted |
| Date sampled | August 16, 2021 |
| Date submitted | August 16, 2021 |
| Submitted by (signed) | Edward Olmsted |
| Delivered by | Fedex, UPS, USPO, in person |
| Received by (signed) | Julie Yang |
| Prestige Proj. # | 210817‑04 |
Page 1 samples (8): 97G‑9 (Bulk, P003), 97G‑6 (Bulk, P003), 97G‑7 (Bulk, P003), Room 1 wood floor (air, P001, 75 L), Rm 2 (air, P001, 75 L), bathroom (air, P001, 75 L), Outside (air, P001, 75 L), Rm 3 (air, P001, 75 L), Kitchen (air, P001, 75 L).
Page 2 samples (4): 97G‑3 ceiling wood deck (Tape, P003), 97G‑1 bathroom wall (Tape, P003), 97G‑4 Room 2 wall (Tape, P003), 96G‑12 insulation room 1 (Tape, P003).
Total samples on COC: 13 (6 air + 3 bulk + 4 tape). The sample count matches the two Prestige analytical reports.
H) Cross‑References (White Tabs and Other Volumes)¶
Within the WT‑108 Family:
- WT‑108: ALC Post‑Remediation Verification (PRV) Report (Aug 3, 2021). The ALC PRV states the apartment "has achieved clearance." The Prestige lab results in this tab (108B) were collected 19 days after the ALC PRV inspection (Jul 28) at the same location.
- WT‑108A: Mold Abatement Work Scope (Dec 8, 2020). The agreed scope against which Christian Gray's Aug 11 email describes incomplete work. Olmsted's Aug 18 email states: "They need to do the entire scope."
Environmental Assessment Sequence (Chain B):
- WT‑107: Olmsted Mold Inspection (Jun 28, 2020) — baseline conditions before remediation.
- WT‑112: ALC Pre‑Remediation Inspection (Feb 7, 2020) — landlord's consultant initial assessment.
- WT‑109: Olmsted Response to ALC PRV (Aug 18, 2022) — formal narrative report produced approximately 12 months after the lab results in this tab were delivered.
- WT‑110: Olmsted Follow‑Up Scope (Nov 7, 2022) — additional items identified.
- WT‑110A: ALC Additional Scope of Work (Nov 2022) — Glass acknowledges additional work.
- WT‑111: July 2023 Re‑Flood Email Packet — conditions persist or worsen.
Scope Manipulation Evidence:
- WT‑106: G21 Scope Court‑Ordered vs. Executed — scope comparison matrix.
- WT‑114: Scope Manipulation Evidence Compendium — consolidated evidence of scope failures.
Witness Profiles:
- WT‑204: Edward Olmsted — inspector, sample collector, professional assessment author.
- WT‑205: Candice Kowalewski — ALC PRV signatory; PRV findings contradicted by this tab's results.
- WT‑206: Jack Glass — ALC PRV signatory; told Olmsted "the work is done" (Olmsted Aug 10 email).
Other Volumes:
- Orange Tab B001: Margaret Sandercock Attorney Malpractice Framework. Sandercock's Aug 11 statement and the 12‑month gap before WT‑109 are relevant to the malpractice theory documented there.
- Purple (strategic analysis): Interpretive significance of the ALC/Olmsted contradiction belongs in Purple section documents. This tab records only what the source documents state.
I) Collection Tasks for WT‑003¶
The following items are identified for authentication and discovery:
-
ALC PRV distribution record: Confirm the date and method by which the ALC PRV (WT‑108) was delivered to Sandercock. The email chain infers ~Aug 11 delivery but the transmittal from Respondent's counsel (Skaller) is not in this package.
-
Olmsted field notes (Aug 16, 2021): Any handwritten or digital notes from the Aug 16 inspection beyond the COC and sample collection. Olmsted's Aug 10 email references a prior visit; any notes from that visit are also relevant.
-
Lab accreditation verification: Prestige EnviroMicrobiology accreditation status as of August 2021. The report header displays an accreditation seal (Lab ID visible on reports).
-
Sample transport records: FedEx/UPS/USPS tracking for Aug 16 sample submission (COC indicates multiple carrier options; actual carrier TBD).
-
Olmsted CIH credential verification: Confirm active CIH certification as of August 2021.
-
Sandercock correspondence (Aug 18–Sept 2021): Any communication from Sandercock to Skaller or the court following receipt of the Aug 18 lab results. Relevant to whether findings were transmitted within the stipulation's 14‑day window.
-
Housing Court docket (Aug–Sept 2021): Any motions, orders, or filings related to remediation compliance during this period.
END — White Tab 108B — Olmsted Post‑PRV Inspection and Lab Results (Aug 10–18, 2021) v1.0