The demolition begins

By Nathan Mayberg
GOSHEN — It's a moment that's been dreaded or awaited, depending on one's view.

Demolition of the Orange County Government Center has begun.

It's not every day that a building recognized by the World Monuments Fund gets taken apart. But the modernist building designed by Paul Rudolph back in the 1960s will come apart after Orange County won several rounds of legal challenges brought by local attorney Michael Sussman on behalf of county residents who hoped to stop the demolition. Sussman filed a new lawsuit this week on behalf of residents and the Paul Rudolph Foundation to stop the demolition on environmental grounds.

The New York Times recently included the government center in an article titled "Seven Leading Architects Defend the World's Most Hated Buildings," putting Goshen in the company of Paris, Naples, Berlin, and London.

The demolition is the culmination of years of wrangling by the current County Executive Steve Neuhaus, his predecessor Edward Diana and the Orange County Legislature over the future of a building that has been closed since a flood in 2011 by Hurricane Irene. Intense debate over the actual damage caused by the hurricane has continued to this day.

Two sides volley at courtA judge last week, and an appellate panel on Wednesday rejected requests by attorney Michael Sussman to delay the demolition while he appeals a June 22 decision by Ulster County State Supreme Court Judge Christopher Cahill to dismiss his earlier suit to stop the work.

Sussman said Wednesday he would file a new lawsuit to block the demolition on environmental grounds. The county has not complied with state law in its environmental plans for the project, which were updated in May, he said.

Meanwhile, a team overseen by Holt Construction, which is managing the estimated $77 million reconstruction project, is systematically removing parts of the outside walls and interior of the building.

In April, Sussman filed suit on behalf of several local residents to block the demolition and renovation as a waste of taxpayer funds. Following Cahill's June decision, Sussman filed a notice of appeal and asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent the demolition.

Appellate Division Judge Joseph Maltese, based in Staten Island, rejected the restraining order request last week.

Disagreement about what's allowed

According to Sussman, county attorney Langdon Chapman told Maltese's law clerk that the county was moving forward only with asbestos removal, and that any work relating to the demolition was incidental to this work.

Justin Rodriguez, spokesperson for county Executive Steve Neuhaus, disagrees.

"We never promised the Court we weren't proceeding with demolition," he said in an emailed statement.

He labeled any such accusations as "erroneous."

Sussman said Maltese never directly heard either his or the county's arguments. Instead, he said, the arguments were heard by his law clerk.

The county's attorneys told the court that demolition would not begin until this week, Sussman said in his preliminary injunction request following Maltese's decision. He accused the county's attorneys of making "misrepresentations."

Rodriguez stated in an email that the county began removing windows on June 24, the day after the Maltese decision, as it moves forward with demolition.

"The demo team is removing portions of the outside walls on an as-needed basis to remove material from the interior of the building," Rodriguez wrote. "In addition, some interior demolition has already begun. This process should take approximately two to three months. Asbestos removal has been completed and was done so in a very safe and efficient manner by the hard-working construction team on site. The construction team will continue to work in a very diligent manner during the course of this revitalization project."

In his appeal letter, Sussman said the law clerk advised that the court would "expedite the return date on our motion, causing (the county) to respond by June 26 and providing us no time for reply."

Sussman said in a statement that his response to the panel's decision was one of "distress and disappointment."

In an emailed statement, Chapman said he was happy with the outcome.

"Litigation like this...does not serve the taxpayers' interest," he wrote in an emailed statement. "The construction market reacts negatively to the uncertainty that litigation in any job creates. It is my hope this project can now advance consistent with the approved plan and that the litigation has not unwittingly caused costs to rise, especially given that the litigation really had no merit.”

Sussman said it's unlikely that his appeal of the Cahill decision will be heard before the demolition is completed. But he's still hoping his latest request for an injunction, through his new lawsuit, might stop the demolition. The demolition is expected to be completed within two to three months. Pamela Chergotis contributed to this report