# NYC Code Official Bribery



## Keystone (Feb 16, 2015)

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/lehigh-county/index.ssf/2015/02/allentown_man_65_char

An Allentown man is accused of paying off New York Department of Buildings employees as part of a massive bribery scheme.

David Weiszer of Allentown has been identified by the New York County District Attorney's Office as one of 50 defendants involved in widespread housing fraud and bribery schemes in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens.

The defendants include 11 New York City Department of Buildings employees and five New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development employees.

The defendants last week were charged in 26 New York State Supreme Court indictments filed in New York and Kings counties with crimes including bribery, bribe receiving, falsifying business records, tampering with public records and official misconduct.

The investigation had revealed evidence of approximately $450,000 worth of alleged bribes in numerous, distinct schemes between 16 DOB and HPD employees and 22 property managers and owners, six expeditors, two contractors and one engineer, according to a news release by the New York County District Attorney's Office.

Weiszer had served as an "unregistered expediter," bribing multiple Department of Buildings employees, including a chief of development, an inspector and three clerks, according to the news release.

Beginning in September 2011, Weiszer allegedly sent a list of addresses of locations owned by his clients to the then-DOB Chief of Development for Brooklyn Construction, bypassing proper DOB channels, on a near daily basis, authorities say in the release.

The release also states Weiszer, hired by developers, allegedly paid the chief of development and his wife approximately $200,000 for home mortgage payments, a Nissan Rogue SUV, a GMC Terrain SUV and a Royal Caribbean cruise, as well as cash for airline tickets, home renovations and other personal expenses.

Weiszer is similarly alleged to have paid an inspector more than $70,000 in cash bribes for signing-off on Weiszer's necessary inspections, in addition to allegedly paying $2,000 to $3,000 at a time in cash to two clerks, who allowed him to cut past people waiting in line at DOB's Brooklyn office without showing the required credentials.

Authorities in the news release go on to say after he stopped working with the chief of development, Weiszer allegedly developed a new scheme in June 2014 involving a client manager at the New York City Department of Small Business Services.

Weiszer is charged with bribing the manager to route the DOB inspector to his properties, including those that fell outside of the mission of the New York City Department of Small Business Services. He then bribed the inspector to perform  favorable inspections on his properties, the release states.

The New York Daily News reports Weiszer, age 65, has been on the lam for three months after investigators in November went to his Allentown home to seize records.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 16, 2015)

Scumbags............

People remember these articles, and it reflects on all of us.


----------



## Mark K (Feb 16, 2015)

In my experience there is a strong correlation between jurisdictions where you need to hire expediters to deal with the system and corruptions where there is corruption.


----------



## conarb (Feb 16, 2015)

Mark K said:
			
		

> In my experience there is a strong correlation between jurisdictions where you need to hire expediters to deal with the system and corruptions where there is corruption.


Since most permit expediters are former building inspectors I've always suspected that current CBOs deliberately slow the process down forcing contractors to use expeditors, much like former congressmen usually become lobbyists after they retire or lose their office.  After the scandals in San Francisco I thought that would be remedied, but apparently not, the last I heard the minimum fee was $10,000 but worth it to accelerate the multi-year process.  I had a Mexican American contractor tell me that he suspected that his architect was taking so long because of racial prejudice, I told him no they did the same thing to me, if anything they would be more careful when dealing with him fearing allegations of racial prejudice.


----------



## jdfruit (Feb 17, 2015)

New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. and many other small towns and counties you don't hear about. Corruption makes headlines that sells news to a very jaded audience. There most likely is a profile for someone in the public trust that is willing for whatever reason to be corrupted. If we know the symptoms, maybe we can do something about it.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 17, 2015)

> Weiszer had served as an "unregistered expediter,"


So everything would have been okay if he had just registered

No building department application and review should ever be so complicated that someone needs to hire an expediter.

No building department should allow any permit application to be expedited in front of others. They should have a process to deal with efficiently and in a timely manner based on the size of the projects.


----------



## ICE (Feb 17, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> So everything would have been okay if he had just registered No building department application and review should ever be so complicated that someone needs to hire an expediter.
> 
> No building department should allow any permit application to be expedited in front of others. They should have a process to deal with efficiently and in a timely manner based on the size of the projects.


The process can't be dumbed down enough to eliminate the need for an expediter in every case.

Around here, expidited plan check is done on an overtime basis.  That doesn't afford anyone an advantage.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 17, 2015)

> Around here, expedited plan check is done on an overtime basis. That doesn't afford anyone an advantage.


Sure it does. It gives the advantage to the one who can afford to pay the overtime to move their project through the process faster than others. If a department is not processing applications in a timely manner then the department is responsible to hire more staff, authorize overtime, or contract with a third party to get them done in a timely manner.

As long as an "expediter" is not expecting or paying for "special" treatment then they are just another professional service offered to the industry. Anything more than that leaves the department wide open for acts of impropriety legal and illegal.

JMHO


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 17, 2015)

ICE

I thought you where on vacation.

Take a break from the board and enjoy yourself.


----------



## ICE (Feb 17, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Sure it does. It gives the advantage to the one who can afford to pay the overtime to move their project through the process faster than others. If a department is not processing applications in a timely manner then the department is responsible to hire more staff, authorize overtime, or contract with a third party to get them done in a timely manner.


The projects that are in the que are not delayed by a project that is expedited by staff working overtime.  If the department refuses to expedite by giving plan checkers work to take home the people in the que will actually wait longer than if the department did expedite projects.  So there is no advantage to the project that was expedited.  In fact there was a penalty in that it cost more.

About this being a favor to the rich.....well that's what being rich is all about.....they live better than the rest of us.......well maybe not all of you out there but certainly me and Brent.  You don't see Brent in any designer dresses do you?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 17, 2015)

I did not intend this process applies to the "rich" . The average homeowner will never be able to pass this cost on to anyone.

I was just stating it is the departments responsibility to review plans in a timely fashion. Their failure to do that because of manpower or budget constraints which do not allow overtime is not a problem that should be solved by "expediting fees".

My department operates as a enterprise fund. I am permitted to have one year of operating expenses in reserves. If my department is over budget at the end of the fiscal year I have the funds to cover the additional expenses. There is no reason for my department to ever need to offer an "expediting" process. I can always contract for plan review or inspection services if needed.


----------



## ICE (Feb 18, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I was just stating it is the departments responsibility to review plans in a timely fashion.
> 
> There is no reason for my department to ever need to offer an "expediting" process. I can always contract for plan review or inspection services if needed.


We don't offer to expedite plans.  If the applicant asks we will try to accommodate.  The perception of "timely fashion" varies.  I don't see jurisdictions hiring or contracting out when the backlog gets large.....it just takes longer.  So some person willing to pay some thousands extra gets through in three weeks instead of eight weeks.  Even that special que can get clogged.  It happens that a worthy need must be attached to the request for expedited plan check.  Just because you want it is not enough.  That generally only happens with electrical or mechanical plan check as there aren't as many of those engineers as the civils.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 18, 2015)

I started out in Florida and we had 30 working days to process a single family dwelling permit. I see no reason why every department can't adhere to this time frame. We strive to have commercial plan review comments out within 15 working days, sometimes it may be 20 or 25 working days, if it starts to get longer then it is the building official responsibility to rectify the backlog.   

  (14) A building permit for a single-family residential dwelling must be issued within 30 working days of application therefor unless unusual circumstances require a longer time for processing the application or unless the permit application fails to satisfy the Florida Building Code or the enforcing agency’s laws or ordinances.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0553/Sections/0553.79.html


----------



## JBI (Feb 18, 2015)

Not a fan of 'expediting'. First come, first served. But I also never worked in a large urban center either...

The folks I dealt with who came from larger cities were often put off by the fact that we did not expedite.

Had they not been so arrogant about it I might have actually cared.


----------



## cda (May 9, 2015)

and from the great sate of Florida::

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, May 8, 2015

Bribery Charge Brought Against Miami Building Owner/Manager In Connection With Fire Code Violations

The owner and manager of the Miami Office Center, which leases office space and manages property at a location known as the Flagler Building Downtown, was charged today with one count of bribery.

Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, FBI, Miami Field Office, and Rodolfo Llanes, Chief, City of Miami Police Department (MPD), made the announcement.

Dvir Derhy, 46, of Miami, was charged by information with bribery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a)(2).  Derhy faces a maximum possible sentence of ten years in prison for this offense.

According to the information, the Flagler Building Downtown, located at 223 East Flagler Street, was cited for violations of the City of Miami fire code for blocking egress from the building.  Derhy owned and managed the Flagler Building Downtown.  Between July 18, 2014 and July 21, 2014, Derhy corruptly gave, offered, and agreed to give cash payments to another person, with the intent to influence and reward an agent or employee of the City of Miami Fire Department, in connection with the removal of these citations.

Mr. Ferrer commended the investigative efforts of the FBI Miami Area Corruption Task Force and the City of Miami Police Department Internal Affairs Section.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry C. Wallace, Jr.

An information is only an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida at www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.


----------

