« Tuesday Events Next Goldman M&A Target: Brooklyn Heights? »

December 11, 2007

Patricia Lancaster Responds to Daily News' Charges

lancasterDN121007.jpgYesterday's Daily News article about the deal Patricia Lancaster cut with Robert Scarano certainly did its best to make it sound like something improper had occurred when the DOB head agreed not to reveal any of the details of its Scarano investigation to any other regulatory agencies or the press in return for the architect's voluntarily giving up the right to self-cerify. Noticeably absent from the article, however, was any perspective that might explain Lancaster's side of the story. As one commenter on Brownstoner put it yesterday, "I couldn't tell whether I was supposed to think she was aiding and abetting a criminal or just cutting an expedient deal the way a prosecutor might." A it turns out, the latter's exactly the defense that the DOB put forth in an email to us last night. Likening the stipulation to a plea bargain, the DOB argues that it was the most expedient way to get Scarano out of the Professional Certification Program; on top of that, the department argues, the State already knew about Scarano's alleged misdeeds at the time of the stipulation and it had "no practical impact whatsoever" on the State's ability to go after Scarano. While we've certainly been critical of the DOB in many instances in the past, this seems like a pretty reasonable explanation. In the end, what possible reason would Lancaster have to coddle Scarano given what a high profile case it was? It just doesn't make sense.
Buildings Chief Hid Architect's Mistakes [NY Daily News]
Daily News: DOB Chief Buried Scarano's Blunders [Brownstoner]
Photo by Thomas Moncaster for The Daily News




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:57 AM | Comments (17)
Categories: DOB

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3177

Comments

Ah, the power of the irresponsible press

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 9:32 AM

I just want to understand: regardless this specific Scarano case is it that from now forth the architectural professional will be viewed as an ultimate responsible for every unfortunate death in the construction site, left alone GC and others involved with their insurances? Does anyone have any insight?

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 10:04 AM

10:04 -- I don't see how you derive your statement as the logical outcome of DOB's actions. Go back through the archives here and read the attached newspaper accounts of the history of the allegations DOB asserted against Scarano (as opposed to what various posters here have said). You will get a better picture of what DOB's issues with Scarano were that led it to seek surrender of self-cert. privileges.

Posted by: slopefarm at December 11, 2007 10:16 AM

Wait a second - doesn't DOB have the power to rescind professional certification where it has proof of faulty certifications by an architect? Why cut a deal at all?

Further, by agreeing to suppress whatever evidence it had against Scarano, DOB a) made it more difficult for the state to pursue charges, and b) made it more difficult for anyone to pursue cases against developers and GCs (10:04 is right - a lot of other people's crap is being laid at Scarano's feet).

And that's basically what the DOB agreement amounts to - an agreement to suppress evidence. Maybe that evidence would have implicated DOB as well?

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 10:21 AM

Totally agree with above poster. Brownstoner, I don't know why you are trying to let the DOC off easy on this one. DOB does not have to cut a deal in order to rescind self certification privileges. You falsify documents, you get your self certification rescinded. Very simple. DOB is a mess.

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 10:51 AM

"Wait a second - doesn't DOB have the power to rescind professional certification where it has proof of faulty certifications by an architect? Why cut a deal at all?"

That's what I don't get. When I'm in the DOB, I don't get any "offers" for "deals."

It's also not the DOB's call as to what part of what it knows being relevant to the State licensing honchos case against Scarano. That's their call, not Lancaster's.

Posted by: an architect in Brooklyn at December 11, 2007 11:07 AM

How dare ANYONE make fun of Scarano after all he's been through?

LEAVE SCARANO ALONE! You are lucky he even designs buildings for you BASTARDS!

LEEEAVE SCARRRANNNNOOOO ALOOOOONE!

Please!

LEAVE ROBERT SCARANO ALONE RIGHT NOW! I mean it! Anyone has a problem, deal with ME, cuz he's not well right now!

Leave him alone!

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 11:27 AM

How come when I file a complaint with the DOB they claim they send someone to investigate the complaint, but that no one is home, "no answer at front door," and then they close the complaint file. What makes it particularly curious is that the place of complaint is a business that is almost always open, and the front door is also always open. This is the kind of shenanigans that makes me think that anything the DOB says is worthless.

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 11:35 AM

No the DoB does not have the authority to rescind someone's architectural license. New York State licenses architects, and I believe only the state can pull somebody's license to practice architecture in that state.

on a related topic, I don't really understand how pulling Scarano's ability to self-certify would have any effect on him - I think he can just get another registered architect in his office (presumably a well-compensated employee) to sign and seal the documents, and perform the self-certification

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 11:50 AM

Of course the DOB cannot revoke an architect license. Lets not try to confuse issues. We are talking about self certifying and DOB can prevent Scarano Architects, as a whole, from doing any self certification.

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 12:13 PM

Here's a theory: despite all the allegations, DOB thought it was going to be difficult to prove that Scarano intentionally self-certified plans that he knew were illegal (as opposed to arguable interpretations of the zoning resolution and building code) and cut this deal...the ministerial version of a plea bargain.

Posted by: g man at December 11, 2007 12:48 PM

Go DeBlassio!!!!!!!

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 12:49 PM

DOB does not license architects. The State does. DOB cannot revoke architects licenses. The State can.

DOB cannot rescind the privilege to self certify without due process. Due process takes forever... DOB wanted him to stop self certifying quick so they probably agreed to not refer him directly to State, knowing the State was already investigating. Why hasn't the State revoked his license?

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 3:42 PM

As I stated yesterday, this was a negotiated plea deal (similar to Henry Radusky's in 2003) so that DOB would drop it's OATH case. The OATH hearing, if it went against Scarano, could have opened the civil flood gates against him for sites he professional certified (now shut down or delayed by DOB) from the developers and GC's he was working with...let alone the affected neighbors, communities and, oh wait, the families of the dead workers.

It was in Scarano's best interest. There is also the thought that DOB may have "done the deal" since if Scarnao was not found at fault (or even if he was) it could be argued that DOB had culpability in his illegal ways since they allowed him to get away with it for 5+ years.

Now, that's a story. Anyone at the NYDN reading this?

Posted by: Action Jackson at December 11, 2007 5:05 PM

I agree whole heartedly with Action Jackson.
What the DOB did was not done to expedite anything but the cover up of the DOB's complicity in ALL the illegal actions involving Scarano and all the people involved with him. That includes Henry Radusky, who's plans Scarrano signed off on.
Lancaster and the rest were only covering their own butts. Just like they have done with Radusky and the others who have been allowed by DOB to violate the "administrative code" on a daily basis.
They should all (DOB, Scarrano, Radusky, Katan, Boymelgreen, Mendlshit and the rest) be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Posted by: guest at December 11, 2007 8:03 PM

O-kay, eight-oh-three! Now all you need is a plaintiff and counsel up to the task. In the absense of same, I argue that you're just blowing smoke.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 6:21 AM

Blow it out your A

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 5:39 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions