Inspector of Buckling Building Cited for Missing Problems at Other Sites
Source: The New York Times
Inspector of Buckling Building Cited for Missing Problems at Other Sites
A New York Times review of city records shows that the firm, Domani Inspection Services, was repeatedly accused of breaking New York City rules.

An ambitious building project at 235 East 42nd Street in Manhattan was evacuated suddenly after workers noticed columns beginning to buckle. Dave Sanders for The New York Times
By Stefanos Chen, Dionne Searcey, Asmaa Elkeurti and Mihir Zaveri
The reporters conducted dozens of interviews for this article, including with engineering experts and city officials, reviewed hundreds of pages of city documents and analyzed millions of rows of city violation records.
July 9, 2026, 2:13 a.m. ET
Before columns buckled inside a Midtown Manhattan office tower on Tuesday, a private firm conducted several inspections of major structural alterations being done at the site and apparently signed off on at least some of them, records and interviews show.
The firm, Domani Inspection Services, certified the safety of high strength bolting, steel welding and the structural stability of changes being made as part of an ambitious project to transform the offices into a 37-story apartment building.
It was not clear whether any of the work inspected by Domani contributed to the failure of columns on the 21st floor of the building. But a New York Times examination of the inspection companys record has found that it has been repeatedly cited for missing warning signs at other building projects in the city.
The damage at the building, at 235 East 42nd Street, forced the evacuation of several other buildings throughout the area, disrupting workplaces and choking off a vital thoroughfare during a time of peak tourism. The disruption has placed scrutiny on the future of office-to-residential conversions as a creative and efficient solution to the citys crippling housing shortage.
It has also put a spotlight on MetroLoft, a developer of the project, and Domani, the private firm hired by the property owner as a so-called special inspection agency. Such firms are supposed to ensure specific tasks performed by individual workers are done properly. And they sign and stamp technical reports attesting to as much. The city requires their approval before deeming large projects completed.
The New York City Department of Buildings accused Domani three times from 2012 to 2017 of violations ranging from conducting unlicensed concrete testing to failing to report a facade collapse. Two of those cases were dismissed, while a third resulted in a fine of $1,000, records show.
{snip}
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/nyregion/nyc-building-collapse-inspection.html
https://www.nytimes.com/by/stefanos-chen
https://www.nytimes.com/by/dionne-searcey
https://www.nytimes.com/by/asmaa-elkeurti
https://www.nytimes.com/by/mihir-zaveri
bucolic_frolic
(56,484 posts)hired by the property owner. arm's length lack of independence.
mwmisses4289
(5,328 posts)It all comes back to that, doesn't?
Save money by cutting corners and getting the job done quickly, make money by over inflating how much these units will cost.
Of course there has to be a scapegoat. How many others up and down the line of inspections signed off on what appears to be shoddy work?
High rises. Ugh. Too many good examples of why not to live in one of these places.
Old Crank
(7,478 posts)Was there a redesign and engineering study of the beems that were holdong up 3 floor of load strengthen or modified to carry the added floors directly on those beems? If not, why not.
Was the inspection company inspecting based on the, I assume, approved plans? If those plans were approved and the company can show that they checked the work against teh plans then they are off the hook. If they didn't check them correctly against the plans they are liable.
It is really hard to blame a middle man for what appears to be errors made in planning.
I saw one good solution for the independent checkers. That would be the city picks the inspection service, not the builder.
I think some one decided to cheap out on the structural engineering needed to support a much greater load than the original beems were meant to carry. That might be true for all the beems below the new construction.
niyad
(135,762 posts)in business???