Fresh is suing his neighbor as well as contractors at Oz Bosph Construction, Structureline Inc., for $4 million in damages, alleging the work they did endangered his historic Harlem brownstone, per New York Daily News.
Via Page Six:
Fresh says in his Manhattan suit that the now-halted building project at 249 W. 131st St. has caused major problems to the adjacent brownstone at 251 W. 131st St., which he used to own.
He now lives at 259 W. 131st St. but is suing on behalf of 251’s late owner, Arlene Davis. Fresh is the executor of her estate. It’s not clear what the rapper’s relationship with Davis was.
In the lawsuit filed Monday in state Supreme Court, Fresh claims the property owner and four contractors are responsible for messy work that led to a rodent infestation, water seepage and the “compromised structural integrity” of his building.
“The compromised structural integrity of [Fresh’s building] is evidenced by an apparent and significant shift of [its] structural integrity,” the suit states.
Contractors reportedly left the 249 building without a rear wall, which weakened the entire structure, causing a crack to form along the top-to-bottom wall that has now “allowed water to infiltrate the wall system … seep into the soil and foundation of the adjoining premises, compromise the structural integrity of the adjoining premises, and cause damage,” the court papers say.
The suit also claims “rodents infested and nested” in debris left behind in the construction, which caused a “constant rodent infestation” in 251.
Fresh accuses the owner and contractors of negligence, trespass and having created a private nuisance, the report states.
Architect Anthony Cucich — who is named as one of the defendants — told The Post, “I was involved only on the design of the job. The problem is the contractor didn’t follow the plan. He started taking down the building without shoring it up,” he explained.
“Then [the DOB] stopped the job, and since then, it’s been a struggle going on and off,” Cucich said. He blamed the Brooklyn-based contracting company of taking the building “down without any permission and without following the plan.”
“The contractor that the building owner hired was negligent,” he said. “The rear wall should have been taken down at the end.”