这condominium board at a 1,396-ft-tall residential tower on New York City’s Billionaires’ Row has sued the building’s developers, claiming to have identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects in common areas alone.

Residents of 432 Park Avenue in Manhattan are living with serviceability issues like “horrible and obtrusive noise and vibrations” and may face more serious problems as well, the lawsuit filed in New York Supreme Court on Sept. 23 claims. The alleged defects, which the suit states were identified by SBI Consultants on behalf of a group of residents, don't conform with construction documents or don’t conform with industry standards. There are also alleged code violations or “life safety issues,” in the suit.

这plaintiffs are seeking more than $250 million from the building’s sponsor, 56th and Park (NY) Owner LLC—an entity used by New York City developers to start condos and run their boards until most of a building’s units have been sold—plus seven employees of developers CIM Group and Macklowe Properties, who have served on the condo board. The developers themselves are not named as defendants.

96-Story High-Rise

这座96层的高层建筑是西半球最高的住宅建筑，该建筑于2015年完成，仍然是纽约最高的建筑物之一。诉讼指出，这些单位以“最优质的设计，建筑，设施，安全和安全性”为豪华公寓。公寓价格从700万美元开始。96楼的8,255平方英尺的顶层公寓，有六间卧室和八间浴室，目前以1.69亿美元的价格上市。

“Far from the ultra-luxury spaces that they were promised, however, unit owners were sold a building plagued by breakdowns and failures that have endangered and inconvenienced residents, guests and workers, and repeatedly been the subject of highly critical accounts in the press and social media,” the lawsuit states.

在回应诉讼的一份声明中，第56和公园（纽约）老板有限责任公司说：“ 432 Park提供了最好的服务水平，世界一流的设施和最先进的技术，并且是纽约的标志性补充天际线。”开发人员拒绝发表评论。

赞助商说：“实际上，在建筑物的最初占用期间，所有新建筑都有维护和关闭的物品。”“发起人一直并仍致力于与[房主协会]合作解决这些问题。

印度国家银行报告发现的缺陷在建筑的s structural system, its envelope, its mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, its architecture and interiors and its elevator and vertical systems, the complaint states. The commercial unit owners at the base of the building also hired SBI to examine defects in their section. The consultant estimated repairs for some of the issues would cost about $5 million.

Elevators programmed to slow down under high winds have sometimes shut down entirely, trapping residents inside for hours and leaving others unable to access their homes, the complaint states. Apartments are “plagued” by noise and the trash chute sounds “like a bomb.” Cracks have formed in ceilings and walls, and there are gaps around some light fixtures, the residents add.

这re have also been problems with water leaks, the suit states. One leak allegedly caused by “poor plumbing installation” in November 2018 halted two of the four residential elevators for weeks and caused water damage to 35 units, plus common areas.

Seismic Dampers

RafaelViñolyArchitects PC设计针对高大的瘦塔，其苗条比率为1:15，需要一些工程解决方案来减少摇摆和加速度，这通常是可维修的问题，而不是结构安全的问题。五个开放水平，每个间隔十二楼，允许风穿过建筑物。总部位于安大略省的风能工程师RWDI还设计了地震阻尼器，其总质量约为1300吨，旨在减少加速度。

施工过程还提出了一些不寻常的挑战。这白水泥与灰色水泥相比，用于外部的混合更难混合，并且必须将近1400英尺的结构泵送到结构的顶部。2.5英寸DIA，97-KSI钢筋需要一个模板，以确保精确定位15.5英尺高的柱模块。

When some 432 Park residents tried to get repairs made, the suit alleges the sponsor denied responsibility and the condo board, which was under sponsor control until early 2021, delayed work or used cheap, flimsy repairs.

投诉称：“随着单位所有者开始搬进来并占领其单位，他们很快发现，尽管该建筑物被称为奢侈品的顶峰，但该建筑的建筑严重错过了该商标。”“不仅在普遍的豪华标准下，该建筑的建筑有缺陷，而且还带来了重大的安全问题。”

这sponsor also refused to provide as-built drawings or supervise contractors making repairs, the complaint alleges. In one case in July 2021, a worker dealing with a water leak drilled through concrete into the building’s electrical wiring, causing an arc flash explosion and disabling air conditioning for many of the residents. The emergency repairs that followed the incident cost more than $1.5 million.

赞助商在其声明中补充说，它尊重“ 432 Park发布计划和宣言中包含的每项承诺和任期”，并指责HOA限制了对该物业的访问权限，从而延迟了某些工作。

“In addition, the HOA and certain vocal residents misunderstand [the] sponsor’s obligations,” the sponsor said in the statement. “This includes demanding modifications to the building and its operations that, while preferred by the HOA, are clearly not the responsibility of sponsor. Although we are saddened, if in fact, these misperceptions have precipitated litigation, [the] sponsor is confident any legal process will confirm its position.”