Purple Tab B010 — False Certification / PRV: Criminal Referral Package¶

GUARDRAIL: PURPLE — STRATEGIC INTEGRATION

Strategy, framework integration, and settlement positioning. References Blue/Red/Brown damages; does not duplicate calculations.

PART A — SCOPE & GUARDRAILS¶

A.1) Document Purpose¶

This Criminal Referral Package addresses Lane 4 of the fraud framework: False Certification.

It organizes the evidence that:

ALC Environmental issued a Post-Remediation Verification (PRV) report stating that G21 had "achieved clearance" and was "free and clean" of moisture and microbial growth, at a time when major court-ordered remediation scope items had not been completed — a fact later documented by an independent expert, acknowledged on the record by opposing counsel, and confirmed by conditions observed in a July 2023 re-flood.

Lane Position: Lane 4 (B010-B012) — final step in the fraud sequence. Role in Spine: This is "The Lie" following:

Lane 2 (B004-B006): The Promise — court-approved comprehensive scope
Lane 3 (B007-B009): The Betrayal — reduced scope actually executed
Lane 4 (B010-B012): The Lie — certifying the reduced work as full compliance

Important: This document is an internal analysis template. It is drafted to permit a referral if counsel chooses, but it does not constitute or direct any referral. All decisions about whether to contact regulators, licensing authorities, or prosecutors must be made by licensed counsel, and any charging decisions rest solely with those authorities.

A.2) Lane Discipline (Lane 4 — Phases 4-7)¶

Lane 4 — False Certification includes:

Phase 4: ALC's July 28, 2021 PRV inspection and August 3, 2021 PRV Report; the "achieved clearance" / "free and clean" statements
Phase 5: Item-by-item contradictions documented by Olmsted in August and November 2022 ("replete with misleading statements")
Phase 6: On-record acknowledgment by landlord's counsel that affidavits were "not accurate" (HP 6086/2020)
Phase 7: The July 2023 re-flood as a "real-world audit" of PRV claims

Explicitly not in Lane 4 (handled in other Lanes):

Insurance fraud / claim-phase conduct → Lane 1 (B001-B003)
Court stipulation / scope promise → Lane 2 (B004-B006)
Scope manipulation & execution fraud (contractor instructions, 7-day work window) → Lane 3 (B007-B009)

Lane 4 assumes Lanes 2 and 3 have already established:

What the court-ordered scope required (Dec 8, 2020 stipulation)
What instructions were actually given to SERVPRO (Coleman "one layer / bamboo only")
What work was actually done (and not done)

A.3) Labeling & Posture¶

To keep Purple discipline clear:

[Fact] — Directly documented in White-tab evidence (WT-###)
[Inference] — Reasonable conclusion drawn from documented facts
[Argument] — Strategic/legal characterization for attorney review and approval

This document is not legal advice. It is a structured summary of user-supplied evidence and potential legal theories to be reviewed, modified, or rejected by licensed counsel.

A.4) Linkage Panel¶

Linkage → Yellow B002 (Method-2). Enterprise-liability framework (4x-8x court-credible band). Higher-ratio analyses, if needed, are implemented via Pink Vol 03 methodologies and reserved to Appendix/Authority in court-facing drafts.

WT-004 Chain Sources → Chain A (G21 Scope), Chain E (Bid Manipulation), Chain F (Scope Substitution), Chain G (Environmental Assessment)

Evidence Compendium: WT-114 Parts D-G (Scope Manipulation Evidence Compendium) — false certification (Part D), professional audit findings (Part E), counsel admission (Part F), and real-world consequences (Part G).

Leak Chronology: WT-116 (G21 Leaks Documentation) — 10+ year water intrusion pattern supporting Chain E / THE CONSEQUENCE phase.

A.5) Evidentiary Standard¶

All factual statements are grounded in:

ALC PRV Report and G21 scope documents (WT-108, WT-108A)
Olmsted reports (WT-107, WT-109, WT-110)
HP 6086/2020 proceedings and on-record statements (WT-106, §C)
July 2023 re-flood packet (WT-111)
ALC / witness profiles (WT-204, WT-205, WT-206, WT-303)

Quotations marked "verbatim" are taken directly from those sources. Pinpoint citations (e.g., section letters) refer to the corresponding White-tab sections.

PART B — PARTIES, TARGETS & KEY WITNESSES¶

B.1) Corporate Target — ALC Environmental¶

Entity: The ALC Group, LLC d/b/a ALC Environmental White Tab: WT-303 Status: NYS Mold Assessor Company License No. 00034 (valid during PRV period) Role: Environmental consulting firm engaged to:

Perform initial water intrusion assessment (Feb 2020)
Conduct Post-Remediation Verification (PRV) for G21 (July/August 2021)

[Fact] ALC issued the August 3, 2021 PRV Report for G21, certifying that the apartment had "achieved clearance." (WT-108)

[Fact] ALC's corporate license (No. 00034) was valid in July 2021. (WT-303)

Exposure Themes (for counsel to assess):

Corporate responsibility for accuracy of PRV reports
Potential falsification / misleading business records if PRV statements are shown to be knowingly inaccurate

B.2) Individual Target — Candice A. Kowalewski, MPH¶

White Tab: WT-205 Role: ALC field assessor; PRV signatory for G21 Credentials: MPH (Master of Public Health); NYS mold assessor license MA01387 (verified valid through Aug 2024)

Documented Involvement:

[Fact] Feb 7, 2020: Conducted initial G21 water intrusion inspection; authored March 18, 2020 report documenting ~62 sq ft mold and ~750 sq ft water-damaged materials. (WT-112)
[Fact] July 28, 2021: Conducted PRV inspection of G21, one day after SERVPRO's remediation window closed. (WT-108)
[Fact] Aug 3, 2021: Signed the PRV report as "Inspector" and lead author. (WT-108)

B.3) Individual Target — Jack Glass, MS, CIH¶

White Tab: WT-206 Role: Vice President, Environmental Health & Safety (ALC); PRV co-signatory Credentials: MS, CIH (Certified Industrial Hygienist)

Documented Involvement:

[Fact] Co-signed both the February 2020 Water Intrusion Report and the August 2021 PRV Report for G21. (WT-112, WT-108)
[Fact] Handwritten margin notes on the Dec 8, 2020 Work Scope document (Exhibit 1 to the stipulation) are attributed to Glass ("JG" initials). (WT-108A)
[Fact] Olmsted reports that in a July 2021 meeting, Glass acknowledged that "further work was needed" at G21 and that a written plan would be provided — which "was never provided." (WT-109, §G)

Knowledge / Authority Indicators:

Glass's margin notes on S-017 (scope) demonstrate he personally reviewed and engaged with specific scope items.
His CIH credential and VP title place him as the supervisory authority responsible for PRV quality control.
His co-signature on the PRV links that knowledge and authority to the "achieved clearance" statement.

[Argument] These facts substantially undercut any suggestion that Glass was unaware of the scope requirements or simply relying blindly on others; whether that defeats any "good faith" defense is a legal question for counsel.

B.4) Expert Witness — Edward A. Olmsted, CIH, CSP¶

White Tab: WT-204 (profile), WT-107/109/110 (substantive reports) Role: Independent Certified Industrial Hygienist and Certified Safety Professional; tenant's expert

Key Contributions:

Baseline (June 28, 2020 — WT-107):
190,000 CFU/in² under the kitchen floor.
5,000,000 CFU/in² above the living room ceiling.
Recommended comprehensive removal consistent with later 10-item scope.
Response (Aug 18, 2022 — WT-109):
Reviewed PRV and scope execution; concluded the affirmation was "replete with misleading and incorrect statements… bring[ing] into question the veracity of the entire document." (verbatim)
Documented multiple scope items never completed.
Follow-Up (Nov 7, 2022 — WT-110):
Identified additional deficiencies and visible mold approximately 16 months after PRV "clearance."

Olmsted anchors the technical case that the PRV statements do not match the observed facts.

B.5) Centerpiece Exhibits (S-016 to S-023)¶

Exhibit	Description	White Source	Narrative Role
S-016	ALC PRV Report (Aug 3, 2021)	WT-108	THE CERTIFICATION
S-017	Dec 8, 2020 Work Scope (Exh. 1) with Glass margin notes	WT-108A	THE STANDARD
S-018	Olmsted Response (Aug 18, 2022)	WT-109	THE EXPOSURE
S-019	Olmsted Follow-Up (Nov 7, 2022)	WT-110	THE CONTINUATION
S-020	July 2023 Re-Flood Email Packet	WT-111	THE AUDIT
S-021	Kowalewski Credentials & PRV Authority	WT-205, 303-NYDOL-LIC-01	THE PROFESSIONAL CONTEXT
S-022	Olmsted Baseline Report (June 2020)	WT-107	THE BASELINE
S-023	HP 6086/2020 Transcript — Counsel "Not Accurate" Admission	WT-106, §C	THE FORCED CONCESSION

PART C — THE FALSE CERTIFICATION NARRATIVE (LANE 4)¶

C.1) Same Inspector, Same Property, 18-Month Arc¶

[Fact] On February 7, 2020, ALC (through Kowalewski) inspected G21 for water intrusion and mold. The March 18, 2020 report documented approximately 62 sq ft of visible mold and ~750 sq ft of water-damaged materials, recommending remediation and post-remediation verification. (WT-112)

[Fact] On December 8, 2020, a 10-item comprehensive remediation scope for G21 was negotiated among Glass, Kowalewski, and Olmsted and filed as Exhibit 1 to a Housing Court stipulation. (WT-108A; see Lane 2 B004-B006)

[Inference] By July 2021, when the PRV was conducted, both Kowalewski and Glass had:

Personal knowledge of the baseline severity (Feb 2020 report, June 2020 Olmsted baseline).
Direct involvement in the drafting and acceptance of the 10-item full-gut scope.

They were not new to the property or unfamiliar with the required work.

C.2) The One-Day Turnaround¶

[Fact] SERVPRO's remediation window at G21 ran from July 20–27, 2021 (7 days). (WT-108, WT-106)

[Fact] ALC's PRV inspection took place on July 28, 2021, one day after that window closed. (WT-108)

[Fact] The PRV report was issued on August 3, 2021. (WT-108)

[Inference] A 10-item full-gut scope — involving wall and flooring removal, party wall probes, ceiling probes, and HVAC work — being inspected within 24 hours of purported completion raises a question whether the inspector had time and opportunity to verify each item, or whether the verification was cursory or largely predetermined.

[Argument] The timing is not proof by itself, but it is consistent with a process focused on generating a clearance document quickly rather than rigorously confirming that all court-ordered work had been completed.

C.3) What ALC Certified — "Achieved Clearance" (Phase 4)¶

Key language from S-016 (WT-108) (verbatim):

"This apartment has achieved clearance. ALC found the apartment to be free and clean of moisture, microbial growth, and 'mold-like' odors."

PRV claims for specific areas include:

Studio 1 — "walls, ceiling, and floor removed as per work scope"
Studio 2 — "carpeting, ceiling, and walls removed"
Studio 3 — "Up to 2 ft of wall removed… free and clean of VMG"
Bathroom — "shower wall; 3 ft gypsum removal; raised floor removed"

Methods the PRV claims to have used:

Visual and olfactory observations
Moisture testing
Air sampling (7 indoor samples + 1 outdoor reference)
Infrared scanning

[Fact] The PRV notes indoor relative humidity of around 72.9–73.0%. (WT-108) [Inference] Industry guidance generally treats sustained RH >60% as conducive to mold growth; elevated humidity at the time of "clearance" sits awkwardly with a finding that the apartment was "free and clean" of moisture-related risk.

C.4) What Olmsted Found — "Replete with Misleading Statements" (Phase 5)¶

[Fact] On August 18, 2022, approximately 12–13 months after the PRV, Olmsted reinspected G21 and issued a detailed response. (WT-109)

Opening statement (verbatim):

"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." (WT-109, §B)

Item-by-item comparison (Scope vs. PRV vs. Reality):

Scope Item (Dec 8, 2020)	PRV Representation (Aug 3, 2021)	Olmsted Finding (Aug 18, 2022)
Item 1: Rooms 1–3 — Gut demo to studs; floors to slab	S-016 states walls/ceiling/floor removed "as per work scope"	Only one layer of wallboard removed; Studio 1 floor not to slab; two layers of wood flooring remaining; underside heavily moldy and wet on meter probe. (WT-109, §D)
Item 2: Bathroom raised floor — Remove under tub / water heater	PRV indicates raised floor addressed	Olmsted: bathroom raised floor not removed. (WT-109)
Item 3: Bath/Kitchen shared wall — Open to inspect cavity	PRV does not identify cavity removal; general "free and clean" description	Olmsted: wall not opened; mold remained. (WT-109)
Item 5: Shared walls — Take to cavity	PRV treats areas as completed	Olmsted: shared walls not taken to cavity as required. (WT-109)
Item 6: Room 2 hallway wall — Lower 4 ft removal	PRV suggests compliant removal	Olmsted: incomplete, with visible mold remaining. (WT-109)
Item 8: Living room party wall probes — Four 2×2 ft probes	PRV does not mention probes	Olmsted: no probes cut; required openings never made. (WT-109)
Item 9: Living room ceiling probes — Cut to deck	PRV does not mention ceiling probes	Olmsted: no ceiling probes cut; contaminated cavity never accessed. (WT-109)

Studio 1 floor detail (verbatim excerpt — WT-109):

"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… [the] scope was never followed."

[Fact] Olmsted reports that certain contamination was "readily accessible" without cutting any new openings — e.g., by lifting flooring that should have been removed under the court-ordered scope. (WT-109)

[Inference] The conditions Olmsted observed were not hidden defects that developed after an otherwise adequate remediation; they were directly traceable to scope items never completed.

C.5) Continued Deficiencies — November 2022¶

[Fact] On November 7, 2022, Olmsted conducted a follow-up inspection. (WT-110)

[Fact] He identified additional deficiencies, including visible mold in wall and ceiling probe areas that remained unaddressed, approximately 16 months after the PRV "clearance." (WT-110)

[Inference] The problem was not transient. The combination of incomplete scope execution and elevated humidity created continuing conditions inconsistent with a sustained "clearance."

C.6) The On-Record Acknowledgment — Forced Concession (Phase 6)¶

[Fact] In HP 6086/2020 proceedings, landlord's counsel (Skaller) stated on the record that affidavits asserting comprehensive remediation completion were "not accurate." (WT-106, §C)

[Inference] This on-record statement was made after Olmsted's August 2022 report (WT-109) documented the non-completion. Faced with documented, objective evidence that the PRV certification was false, counsel had limited options other than acknowledging the problem.

[Argument] This admission is one of the most valuable assets in Lane 4 because:

It eliminates the "disputed fact" defense — defendant already conceded inaccuracy.
It creates judicial notice potential — the court heard this statement.
It provides foundation for sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(3).
It establishes professional liability for PRV signatories whose certification underlies the now-acknowledged inaccurate affidavits.

[Fact] The exact page and line citation from HP 6086/2020 is pending collection task HP-TRANS-01. Current status: Reported in WT-106, §C; certified transcript to be obtained for pinpoint citation.

Strategic Significance:

The admission transforms the narrative from "plaintiff alleges PRV was false" to "defendant's own counsel acknowledged the affidavits were not accurate." This is not a disputed expert opinion — it is an on-record concession by the opposing party.

C.7) July 2023 Re-Flood — A Real-World Audit (Phase 7)¶

[Fact] In July 2023, G21 experienced another water event. (WT-111)

Email subject line: "G21 Flooded Again!" (WT-111)
Standing water observed near the bathroom/hallway junction and along the east living room wall.
Photos and video documented visible black mold on bathroom walls/floor and adjoining hallway and kitchen walls. (WT-111, WT-106A)

[Fact] These were the same general areas implicated in the original baseline contamination and scope. (WT-107, WT-108A)

[Argument] The July 2023 re-flood functions as a "real-world audit" of the 2021 PRV. If the apartment had, in fact, been remediated in accordance with the 10-item scope and "achieved clearance," one would not expect to see widespread visible mold re-emerge in the same locations less than two years later without some additional catastrophic event. The pattern is more consistent with incomplete original remediation.

C.8) The Four-Phase Proof Sequence¶

Lane 4 Narrative Arc:

Phase	Date	Event	Evidence	Narrative Role
Phase 4	Aug 3, 2021	PRV Certification	WT-108	Creates false record ("achieved clearance")
Phase 5	Aug 18, 2022	Independent Expert Audit	WT-109	Exposes falsity ("replete with misleading statements")
Phase 6	2022 (TBD)	On-Record Acknowledgment	WT-106, §C	Forced admission (counsel: "not accurate")
Phase 7	Jul 12-17, 2023	Second Flood Event	WT-111	Physical reality confirms falsity

[Argument] This four-phase sequence provides three independent proof sources that the PRV was false:

Expert validation (Phase 5) — Olmsted's professional opinion based on documented conditions
On-record admission (Phase 6) — Opposing counsel's own acknowledgment
Physical evidence (Phase 7) — Visible mold in "cleared" areas

Each source eliminates potential defenses: - Phase 5 eliminates "the work was done correctly" - Phase 6 eliminates "this is just a difference of professional opinion" - Phase 7 eliminates "conditions changed after an adequate remediation"

PART D — PROOF TABLE (ELEMENT → EVIDENCE → GAP)¶

D.1) Core Proof Matrix¶

Element	Evidence	White Source	Status	Gap / Note
PRV was issued	PRV report dated Aug 3, 2021	WT-108	[Fact]	None
PRV asserted "achieved clearance"	"This apartment has achieved clearance…" (verbatim)	WT-108	[Fact]	None
PRV represented specific scope completion	Area statements (e.g., Studio 1 floor "removed as per work scope")	WT-108	[Fact]	None
Court-ordered scope required more extensive work	10-item Dec 8, 2020 scope	WT-108A	[Fact]	None
Scope was not fully executed	Item-by-item deficiencies documented	WT-109, WT-110	[Fact]	None
Expert characterized PRV as misleading	"Replete with misleading and incorrect statements…"	WT-109	[Fact]	None
Same inspector had baseline knowledge	Feb 2020 assessment; same signatory	WT-112, WT-205	[Fact]	None
Glass had personal knowledge of scope	Margin notes on scope document	WT-108A	[Fact] (auth. to be formalized)	Native copy / handwriting auth (108A-NATIVE)
On-record admission of inaccuracy	Counsel stated affidavits "not accurate"	WT-106, §C	[Fact] (Reported)	Certified transcript page/line (HP-TRANS-01)
Conditions post-PRV inconsistent with clearance	Visible mold Aug 2022, Nov 2022, July 2023	WT-109, WT-110, WT-111	[Fact]	Native media metadata (111-META-01)
Individual license verified valid	License MA01387 confirmed valid 08/31/2018–08/31/2024	303-NYDOL-LIC-01	[Fact]	Verified; no gap

PART E — POTENTIAL LEGAL THEORIES (FOR COUNSEL REVIEW)¶

Important: The following is a summary of possible legal characterizations based on user-provided statute citations and facts. It is not a recommendation, and it is not legal advice. Counsel must determine whether any statute applies, how to interpret it, and whether any referral is appropriate.

E.1) State Business-Record Statutes (User-Cited)¶

NY Penal Law § 175.05 — Falsifying Business Records (Second Degree) (User-cited statute; classification and elements to be confirmed by counsel.)

Conceptually, the PRV may be viewed as a business record containing statements alleged to be false (e.g., "achieved clearance," Studio 1 floor "removed as per work scope"). The analysis would focus on:

Whether the PRV is a "business record" within the meaning of the statute.
Whether specific statements can be proven false by reference to scope and inspection evidence.
Whether there is evidence of an "intent to defraud" (e.g., use of PRV in court to show compliance, avoidance of additional remediation costs).

NY Penal Law § 175.10 — Falsifying Business Records (First Degree)

The First Degree version introduces an additional element regarding intent to commit or conceal another crime. Counsel would evaluate:

Whether the PRV could be seen as intended to conceal another offense (e.g., scope deviation, fraud upon court).

E.2) Professional Standards & Local Law (Non-Criminal, but Relevant)¶

Olmsted cites multiple authoritative references:

EPA "A Brief Guide to Mold, Moisture, and Your Home" — addressing hidden mold and moisture control.
AIHA (2019) "Recognition, Evaluation, and Control of Indoor Mold Growth" — treatment of hidden growth.
Pessi et al. (2002) — describing how growth in insulated walls impacts indoor air quality.
NYC Local Law 61 of 2018 — requiring certain filings (Work Plan Notification, Post-Remediation Assessment Form, Post-Remediation Certification) for regulated mold work.

[Fact] Olmsted reports that required Local Law 61 filings were not made for G21. (WT-109, §H)

These may not themselves be criminal predicates, but they frame:

The professional standard of care expected of a licensed mold assessor.
Regulatory compliance issues that could involve NYC DOB / relevant agencies.

E.3) Common-Law Fraud / Misrepresentation (Civil Context)¶

For civil purposes (outside the strict Lane-4 criminal focus), counsel might look at:

Material misrepresentation: "achieved clearance" vs. documented non-completion.
Knowledge: baseline familiarity with contamination and scope; margin notes; July 2021 "further work needed" acknowledgment.
Intent: PRV used to demonstrate compliance in Housing Court.
Reliance: court and tenant relying on PRV; tenant's decision to remain or to treat remediation as complete.
Damages: costs of re-remediation; continued exposure; re-flood consequences.

Those civil theories are more squarely addressed in other binders (e.g., Red / Pink damages), but Lane 4 provides much of the factual predicate.

E.4) Sanctions / Frivolous Conduct (Civil — 22 NYCRR 130-1.1)¶

[Argument] The on-record admission (Phase 6) provides a potential foundation for sanctions:

[Fact] Affidavits were filed asserting completion per court-ordered scope.
[Fact] Counsel subsequently admitted affidavits were "not accurate" (WT-106, §C).
[Argument] "Inaccurate" affidavits may constitute "material factual statements that are false" under 130-1.1(c)(3).
[Argument] Each affidavit = separate occurrence; $10,000 maximum per occurrence; no case cap.

This avenue requires the HP-TRANS-01 certified transcript for pinpoint citation before filing any motion.

PART F — WITNESS ANALYSIS (LANE 4)¶

F.1) Candice A. Kowalewski, MPH — PRV Signatory¶

Potential Exposure Areas:

Accuracy of her June 2020 baseline description vs. July 2021 "clearance" findings.
Adequacy of PRV methodology relative to scope (e.g., whether she confirmed party wall probes, ceiling probes, bathroom raised floor, Studio 1 floor to slab).

Potential Cooperation Value:

Clarifying internal ALC expectations and instructions around G21.
Identifying any pressure or direction from management (including Glass).
Describing actual inspection steps taken on July 28, 2021.

[Argument] Given the asymmetry between corporate resources and individual exposure, counsel may consider that Kowalewski is more valuable as a fact witness / potential cooperator than as a primary civil recovery target for this lane.

F.2) Jack Glass, MS, CIH — Management Signatory¶

Key Facts for Examination:

Margin notes on S-017 (Dec 8, 2020 scope) demonstrating personal engagement with specific items (e.g., demolition scope, hallway exposure).
July 2021 meeting where he reportedly acknowledged "further work was needed" and committed to a written plan that was never provided. (WT-109, §G)
Co-signature on PRV certifying "clearance" despite those acknowledgments and the later non-completion findings.

Themes for Questioning:

"You wrote these notes; what did you understand the scope to require?"
"When you said further work was needed, what specific work were you referring to?"
"What steps did you take before signing the PRV to confirm that each scope item had been completed?"
"Are you aware that counsel stated on the record that affidavits were 'not accurate'?"

The goal is to explore knowledge, supervisory role, and any divergence between internal awareness and external certification.

F.3) Edward A. Olmsted, CIH, CSP — Independent Expert¶

Olmsted's testimony provides:

Baseline severity (June 2020) → explains why full-gut scope was necessary.
Item-by-item non-completion (Aug 2022, Nov 2022).
Professional critique of PRV statements and methodology.
Context for Local Law 61 and professional-practice standards.

For Lane 4, he is the primary source demonstrating that the PRV statements are inconsistent with both the scope and the observable conditions.

PART G — COLLECTION PRIORITIES & REFERRAL PACKETS¶

G.1) License Status (Verified)¶

[Fact] Task 303-NYDOL-LIC-01 has been completed. NYS Department of Labor records confirm that Candice Kowalewski held an active individual mold assessor license (MA01387) covering the July 28, 2021 PRV date. The license was valid from August 31, 2018 through August 31, 2024.

[Argument] With license status confirmed as valid, Lane 4 proceeds on a False Certification posture only. The PRV deficiencies are framed as professional misrepresentation by a licensed assessor, not unlicensed practice.

G.2) P1 — High Priority (≈ 30 days)¶

Task ID	Target	Custodian	Method	Purpose
HP-TRANS-01	HP 6086/2020 certified transcript	Kings County Housing Court	Court request	Lock page/line of "not accurate" admission (Phase 6)
108-NATIVE	Native PRV PDF with metadata	ALC	Subpoena / request	Authentication; internal creation history.
108A-NATIVE	Native Work Scope with margin notes	ALC	Subpoena / request	Authenticate handwriting; confirm authorship and dates.
206-LIC-01	Glass CIH certification status	ABIH or cert body	Verification request	Confirm active certification and code of ethics context.
LL61-001	Local Law 61 filings for G21	NYC DOB / relevant agency	Records search	Confirm whether required filings were made.
ALC-MONITOR-01	ALC's site notes July 20–27, 2021	ALC	Subpoena / request	Reconcile claimed monitoring with actual work performed.

G.3) P2 — Supporting (≈ 60 days)¶

Task ID	Target	Custodian	Method	Purpose
106-AFF-01	Court-filed affidavits	HP 6086/2020 file	Court request	Identify which affidavits are implicated as "inaccurate"
ALC-HR-001	Kowalewski employment file	ALC	Subpoena	Employment dates; any discipline or termination notes.
ALC-QA-001	ALC QC / PRV approval procedures	ALC	Subpoena	Corporate policies; whether those policies were followed.
GLASS-DEPO	Deposition of Glass	Counsel	Discovery	Margin notes, July 2021 meeting, PRV approval process.
KOW-DEPO	Deposition of Kowalewski	Counsel	Discovery	Inspection methodology; license status; instructions.
ALC-SAMPLE-01	Other 2020-21 ALC PRVs	ALC	Subpoena	Potential pattern evidence (if relevant to counsel).
111-META-01	Native July 2023 photos/video + EXIF	Tenant	Internal	Authenticate "real-world audit" evidence.

G.4) Referral Packet Skeleton (for DA / AG / DOL, if counsel opts to pursue)¶

If counsel elects to refer, a packet could be structured as:

Cover memorandum summarizing allegations (using B010 Parts A–C, edited for addressee).
Evidence appendix:
S-016 (PRV)
S-017 (scope + margin notes)
S-018/S-019 (Olmsted August/November 2022)
S-020 (re-flood photos/video)
S-022 (baseline report)
S-023 (HP 6086/2020 transcript — "not accurate" admission)
License verification attachment (303-NYDOL-LIC-01).
Witness list with contact information (ALC personnel and Olmsted).

Precise content and tone would be drafted and signed by counsel, not by this document.

PART H — INTEGRATION WITH OTHER LANES¶

H.1) Lane 3 → Lane 4 Handoff¶

Lane 3 (B007-B009) establishes:

Roussis's comprehensive assessment and denied contract (contractor manipulation).
Coleman's "one layer drywall only / bamboo only" instructions and omission of probes (scope substitution).
The 7-day execution window and incomplete work (execution fraud).

Lane 4 (this lane) assumes those facts and addresses:

How ALC, with knowledge of both the agreed scope and the actual work, certified "clearance" anyway.
How that certification was later contradicted by independent inspection, on-record admission, and the building's subsequent performance (July 2023).

H.2) Lane 2 → Lane 4 Connection (Court Stipulation → PRV)¶

Lane 2 (B004-B006) documents:

The Dec 8, 2020 stipulation and 10-item scope entered in Housing Court.
That the PRV served as the landlord's key proof of compliance in that proceeding.

For Lane 4:

S-017 (scope) defines the standard against which the PRV should be measured.
Glass's margin notes on the same document show that the PRV signatory team knew exactly what the standard was.
The on-record admission (Phase 6) acknowledges that the affidavits — which relied on the PRV — were "not accurate."

H.3) Lane 1 → Lane 4 Pattern Resonance¶

Lane 1 (B001-B003) concerns insurance representations. Lane 4 is not about insurance but shares a structural similarity:

Documented conditions at G21 (baseline inspections, scope) versus what was represented on paper.
Internal knowledge of structural problems versus external assurances.

This pattern may matter to counsel only if they decide to explore a broader "scheme to defraud" or "pattern and practice" narrative; B010 itself remains confined to Lane-4 PRV issues.

PART I — REFERRAL CONSIDERATIONS (FOR COUNSEL ONLY)¶

I.1) Viability Snapshot¶

Strengths:

PRV makes clear, affirmative statements of fact ("achieved clearance," "free and clean").
Scope and baseline define a detailed, objective standard.
Independent expert contradicts PRV with specific, observable conditions.
On-record admission by opposing counsel eliminates "disputed fact" defense.
Same individuals are involved from baseline through scope through PRV.
July 2023 re-flood provides an intuitive "stress test" illustration for non-lawyers.

Challenges / Questions:

How a factfinder would view the line between "professional judgment" and intentional falsity.
How prosecutors in the relevant jurisdiction typically treat similar professional-misconduct fact patterns.

I.2) Agency Targeting (Conceptual)¶

Kings County DA: Local venue, Housing Court connection, property / fraud units.
NY Attorney General: Potential for broader professional-misconduct / consumer-protection frame.
NYS DOL (and any relevant licensing boards): Enforcement of mold licensing statutes and regulations.

B010 is designed to make a prosecutor's or regulator's job easier if counsel chooses to refer. It does not recommend or assume any particular course of action.

I.3) Civil-Criminal Coordination¶

If civil actions are ongoing or anticipated, counsel may wish to:

Use the evidence summarized here for civil pleadings and discovery.
Decouple civil settlement strategy (B012) from any decision about criminal or regulatory referral timing.
Ensure that any settlement terms do not unintentionally waive rights to file regulatory complaints (unless that is a conscious, advised choice).

PART J — ACTION ITEMS & DECISION GATES¶

J.1) Immediate (Gate-Level)¶

Confirm internal appetite for referral — counsel to decide whether Lane 4 is intended primarily as civil leverage or whether a criminal/regulatory path is genuinely under consideration.
Prioritize HP-TRANS-01 — certified transcript needed to lock Phase 6 admission for formal use.

J.2) 30-Day Targets¶

Obtain HP-TRANS-01 (HP 6086/2020 certified transcript with page/line for "not accurate" admission).
Obtain 108-NATIVE and 108A-NATIVE from ALC.
Verify Glass CIH status (206-LIC-01).
Begin Local Law 61 filings search (LL61-001).
Plan and, if appropriate, notice depositions of Kowalewski and Glass.

J.3) 60-Day Targets¶

Complete ALC depositions (GLASS-DEPO, KOW-DEPO).
Complete supporting collections (ALC-HR-001, ALC-QA-001, 106-AFF-01).
Assemble a draft referral packet for attorney review (if pursued).

J.4) Key Gates¶

HP-TRANS-01 collected? (Phase 6 locked — critical for sanctions and settlement leverage)
Deposition outcomes favorable? (confirm or refine key facts)
Pattern evidence from other PRVs relevant? (ALC-SAMPLE-01)

Counsel may choose to pause or accelerate at each gate depending on what the evidence shows.

END — Purple Tab B010 — False Certification / PRV: Criminal Referral Package v2.7