White Tab 109 — Olmsted Response to ALC (Aug 18, 2022) — Tier‑1 Expert Report (Facts‑Only)¶

GUARDRAIL: WHITE — FACT REPOSITORY ONLY

Facts & source pinpoints only. No strategy, no argument, no legal opinions. All quotations are "as reported" unless exact text appears in a cited source.

A) Document Identification¶

Company: Olmsted Environmental Services, Inc.

Address: 1992 Route 9, Garrison NY 10524

Phone: 845‑424‑4077 | Fax: 845‑424‑3482 | Email: Olmsted.mac@mac.com

Date: August 18, 2022

To: Margaret Sandercock, Goodfarb & Sandercock, LLP, 110 E. 59th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022

From: Edward (Ed) Olmsted, CIH, CSP

Subject (as stated): Review of Affirmation prepared by David Skaller — Christian Gray vs American Packing — 97 Green Street, Brooklyn NY

B) Executive Statement (as written)¶

"I have provided below a response to the affirmation prepared by David Skaller in the above‑referenced matter. I have provided my impressions below:"

"The affirmation is replete with misleading and incorrect statements from Counsel Skaller, Candice Kowalewski and Jack Glass to the degree that it brings into question the veracity of the entire document."

C) Key Misstatements Identified (Olmsted's Findings)¶

1) Bard case mischaracterization¶

Claim attributed to Skaller: Olmsted "cut the ceiling" in a prior case.

Olmsted response: In Bard v. Mautner‑Glick (Index No. 2266/2016), the decision states probe holes were cut by others before his inspection (citations in decision pages 19, 26). He states he did not cut any holes in that case.

2) 97 Green Street inspection methods¶

Claims: Olmsted cut holes; performed additional demolition.

Olmsted response: Neither Skaller nor Glass attended; he states he cut no holes because mold was readily accessible.

Studio 1 floor example: Two layers of wood floor "left in place" (not anchored to slab); could be lifted by hand; upper side damp; underside heavily moldy and wet on meter probe.

Scope note stated: Studio 1 floor was to be removed to the slab; he concludes scope "was never followed."

Standards note stated: Post‑abatement inspection should include moisture testing under NYS DOL/NYC guidance; he states ALC did not do this.

3) Blue insulation panels (Studio 1)¶

Panels left in place could be slid aside by hand; doing so revealed visible mold on sheetrock above and on the shared wall.

Scope note stated: The sheetrock ceiling/walls in Studio 1 were to be removed.

D) Scope of Work Deficiencies — Item‑by‑Item (as described)¶

Context statement: The affirmation/affidavits assert the agreed scope was completed. Olmsted states it was not and that mold materials were left.

Background: Scope was worked out over a year by Glass, Kowalewski, Olmsted with approval from Gray.

Itemized summaries (selected):

Item 1 (Rooms 1–3): Gut demo to studs; remove floors to slab; remove ceilings to deck; clean framing.

Olmsted states: Only one layer of wallboard removed; much left in place; ceilings above tiles left; Studio 1 wood floor not removed to slab; framing couldn't be cleaned where wallboard remained.

Item 2 (Bathroom raised floor under tub/HW heater): Stated not done.
Item 3 (Bathroom/Kitchen shared wall): Stated not done; visible mold remained.
Item 5 (Neighbor shared walls): Stated not done to cavity.
Item 6 (Room 2 — common hallway wall, lower 4'): Stated incomplete; visible mold remained.
Item 8 (Living room party wall — four 2'×2' probes): Stated not done.
Item 9 (Living room ceiling probes to deck): Stated not done.
Item 11 (Inspections section): Notes initial and completion inspections were specified; ALC's daily presence is noted but not part of scope language.

E) Professional Scope Context (as written)¶

The agreed scope required "many meetings and discussions."
Olmsted states ALC later disregarded the scope and performed a smaller job.
He states claims that remaining mold "does not present a hazard" contradict accepted guidelines.

F) Hidden Mold — Professional Standards Cited (as written)¶

EPA: Hidden mold locations (e.g., backs of drywall, above ceilings, under flooring); "dead mold" can still trigger reactions; removal required.
Research (Pessi et al., 2002): Growth in insulated walls can degrade indoor air quality.
AIHA (2019): Consensus that hidden growth should be effectively cleaned/removed; definition of hidden mold provided.

G) July 2021 Meeting (Olmsted ↔ Glass)¶

States that in July 2021, Glass acknowledged further work was needed.
A written plan from Glass was expected; Olmsted states it was never provided.

H) Local Law 61 of 2018 — Filing/Compliance (as written)¶

Olmsted states that required filings (Work Plan Notification, Work Plan, Post‑Remediation Assessment Form, Post‑Remediation Certification) were not filed.

I) Cross‑References (White Tabs)¶

WT‑108: ALC Post‑Remediation Verification (Aug 3, 2021).
WT‑108A: Dec 8, 2020 Mold Abatement Scope (extracted).
WT‑106: Court‑Ordered vs. Executed scope matrix.
WT‑107: Olmsted Mold Inspection (June 28, 2020) — baseline.
WT‑111: July 2023 re‑flood email/photos packet.

J) Collection Tasks for WT‑003 (referenced items)¶

Skaller Affirmation (full text).
Affidavits: Kowalewski, Glass.
Bard decision (pages 19, 26) + Olmsted testimony.
July 2021 meeting notes (if any).
Olmsted photos and moisture data from post‑remediation inspection.
Local Law 61 filing records (if any).

K) Document Structure (page‑level map)¶

p.1: Header; opening assessment.
pp.1–2: Bard case note; 97 Green methods; Studio 1 floor.
pp.2–3: Scope deficiencies (Items 1–11 subset).
p.3–4: Standards citations (EPA, AIHA, research); July 2021 meeting; Local Law 61 filings.

L) Key Personnel References¶

Edward A. Olmsted, CIH, CSP — Author; NYS Mold Assessor.
Candice A. Kowalewski, MPH — ALC; referenced in response.
Jack Glass, MS, CIH — ALC; referenced in response.
David Skaller, Esq. — Landlord's counsel (affirmation author).
Margaret Sandercock, Esq. — Recipient.

M) Strategic Timeline Position (facts only)¶

M.1 Progression Note (facts-only)¶

Step 1 — Post-PRV dispute document: WT-109 is the post-PRV dispute document in the record (dated 2022-08-18) responding to Skaller's affirmation and identifying misleading/incorrect statements and asserted scope non-completion.
Step 2 — Follow-up operationalization / on-site discussion: The later follow-up scope memo WT-110 (2022-11-07) operationalizes additional work items and states that Olmsted and Jack Glass (ALC) discussed those additions on-site.

(This note does not add new facts; it clarifies the sequence between WT-109 and WT-110 for overview/board-view use.)

Dec 8, 2020: Work scope agreed (used as baseline).
Jul 20–27, 2021: Remediation with ALC on‑site.
Jul 28, 2021: PRV inspection.
Aug 3, 2021: PRV issued ("achieved clearance").
Jul 2021 (TBD date): Meeting (Olmsted/Glass); "further work needed."
Aug 18, 2022: This response (WT‑109).
Nov 7, 2022: Subsequent Olmsted report (see WT‑110 if maintained).
Jul 12, 2023: Re‑flood/photos (WT‑111).

N) "Divergences" (facts‑only collation — preview)¶

Purpose: A neutral, parallel summary of what each source states on the same topics.

Note: The master, expanded table will live in WT‑120 — Source Divergences Index. This subsection preserves a minimal preview tied to WT‑108 and WT‑109.

Topic	ALC PRV (WT‑108, 7/28/2021) — what it states	Olmsted Response (WT‑109, 8/18/2022) — what it states
Studio 1 — walls/ceiling/floor	"Walls removed as per work scope"; "Ceiling removed as per work scope"; "Floor removed as per work scope"; area "free and clean of VMG or odors."	Floor not removed to slab; two layers wood left, damp/wet underside with visible mold; sheetrock above insulation and shared wall with visible mold; scope "was never followed."
Material condition at PRV	"Building materials measured dry." Indoor RH ~73% (note in report).	Moisture present under Studio 1 floor at inspection; issues were detectable without cutting (lifted/moved by hand).
Overall outcome	"This apartment has achieved clearance. ALC found apartment to be free and clean of moisture, microbial growth, and 'mold‑like' odors."	States multiple scope items incomplete; mold materials left; cites standards and Local Law 61 filings "not done."

All statements above are drawn from the respective documents and phrased to reflect those documents' language.

O) Source File & Bates (archive placement)¶

Primary PDF (Archive):

File (as uploaded): Olmstead Response to ALC August 18th, 2022.pdf

Path: Open the PDF

Olmstead Response to ALC August 18th, 2022.pdf

Bates Range Assigned: G21‑OLMSTED‑001–004 (4 pages)

How this is referenced in WT‑109:
Listed here in §O with a sandbox link and Bates.
Mirrored in YAML source_document.file.
Cited by short‑name in cross‑refs (WT‑108 / WT‑108A / WT‑111).

Where to put the actual PDF: Keep the PDF in your /mnt/data/ evidence folder (as above). If you maintain a repo/binder tree, mirror it under White/Vol_07/Tier‑1/WT‑109/ and keep the same filename. The link here will continue to point at the copy in /mnt/data/.

END — White Tab 109 — Olmsted Response to ALC (Aug 18, 2022) — Tier‑1 Expert Report (Facts‑Only) v1.3.1