New-York tribune., 1901-07-23
TENEMENT LAW VIOLATED.
PLANS OF FORBIDDEN TYPE APPROVED
IN BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT.
THE CHARITY ORGANIZATION sOCIETYS
COMMITTEE ASKS COMMISSIONER WAL
LACE TO MAKE AN INVESTIGATION.

The CHARITY ORGANIZATION SOCIETY
COMMITTEE ASKS COMMISSIONER WAL
LACE TO MAKE AN INVESTIGATION.
The Tenement House Committee of the Char
ity Organization Society, which includes all the
Manhattan members of the Tenement House
Commission Of 1900, has asked James .G. Wal
lace, the new Commissioner of Buildings. to
take action to prevent an attempt to evade the
provisions of the rew tenement house law. A
list of plans for ffty-three tenement houses
has been sent to the Commissioner by the COM
mittee, with a letter which explains that the
plans were originally dummy" plans filed ap-
parently as pretexts for evasions of the new
law and amended later in violation of the law,
with the connivance of some officials of the
Department of Buildings. 1t is shown that the
plans as finally approved, do not comply with
the requirements of the new law. In every case
the plans were filed by Michael Bernstein. an
architect, who has an Office at No. Ill Broad
way
THE COMMITTEES LETTER
The letter of the committee was sent on July
g. and was signed by Robert w. De Forest,
the chairman. 1t called attention to the fact
that the new law permitted the building of new
tenement houses of the type permitted by the
former law only in where plans for such
buildings had been filed before April 10 and
work on the houses ndO Deen DeSun peLoit
June 1 and prosecuted up to the first tier of
beams before August /. Then the letter called
attention to the plans for tenement houses of
the old type filed by Bernstein, and said
This architect has apparently invented system
by which he has sought TO evade the provisions OF
through the connivanee OF subordinate oficiais OF
the Buildings Department he has successfully done
been this: He has apparently had in his Office
set Of plans for ordinary double decker dumb
hall hG "a Tel n Flg
time in the past at No 35 East Eightyhrst-s or
% SOnJ o'ne ne ,irnt ~ cnp,n % ~ sbts st niaSs
and has filed different copies q this plan IN The
feTent @ tenement no honsss si az a. ,ota1y different oea
No sa va East Anetiehs TG IS ass ete at
He has filled out merely few Of the data on the
has flied with these dummy pians"pians which
are in no way suited or adapted to the plot Of
proposed to be erected, the sizes OF the lots.
ferent. The Buiidngs Department examiner have
uniformly disapproved these plans the statement
and diagram Of the building and lots do not agree
At a subsequent date and in every case after April
10 and after the right to file plans drawn under the
the original plans and substituted a completely
new set OF plans, and completely new table OF
hdb + IN nan MO s IN s Of l. one %
illustrative, the plan examiner has properly dis
approved these plans filed after April 10 with this
different arrangement of premises from those fled
April 10 they should conform 20 Chapter 33i OF the
Laws OF 1907 (the new tenement house act).
This the proper action to be taken under
have been taken in every one Of these cases In
this and In other cases, however at subsequent
i aminer has been overrued, and that without re-
gard to this objection the plans filed after April
ment: although these plans all drawn under
the old law. and do not comply In any resnect with
were filed.
THE METHOD USED
Quotations made in the letter from the rec
ords of the Department of Buildings show
the method pursued in fling the dummy" plans
and having the substitutions made. In the case
of plans for house at No. 65 i1ewis-st flied
on April 10. the official dsapproval on April IL
declared that there no agreement between
the size Of the lot and the size of the building.
Later disapproval declared that the plans should
conform to the new law Bernstein amended
, plans substituted on May and asked accept
! ance ION the ground that the new drawings
is far better ventilated and has less rooms
matcal and confusing plea the plans were ap-
proved on May 20. The amended plans were
totally different from the original plans but did
not conform to the requirements of the new law,
and the committee. commenting upon the action
In the case. says:
discretion authority of any kind to permit a
tenement house 70 be erected on plans made under
ne oId law out nled after April 10 the ground
that they better ventilated than plans filed be-
lore april TO- The action of the department in this
and similar cases seems 10 us to have been
clearly unlawful
Mr. Bernstein was communicated with by
telephone last night and informed of the charges
made by the commission. He said he knew moth
ing of the charges made against him