#publicrecords — Public Fediverse posts

The Mamdani Administration Needs to Take a Second Look at the Plan for Bergen Green

The builder chosen in 2024 by the Eric Adams administration to develop the Bergen Green affordable housing project has a well-documented history of unlawful conduct that puts both workers and residents at risk.

In September of 2023, the US Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York brought a complaint against Apex Building Company (also operating as Apex Building Group) for violations of Section 409 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The ensuing case – United States of America v. Apex Building Company Inc. – resulted in a massive penalty of $606,706 for unsafe practices at five New York City affordable housing sites.

From 2015 to 2021, in “at least five distinct renovation projects, involving 21 apartment buildings and approximately 823 apartments, in New York City,” the company failed to contain lead dust, in violation of EPA rules. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene first found Apex was out of compliance at 76 Grove Street in Brooklyn. Workers were untrained and inadequately protected, and the company “failed to inform the building owner and occupants of the risks of lead poisoning.” And this was not a single, unfortunate lapse. Over the next few years, investigators documented a pattern of willful negligence at Apex projects in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx – all affordable housing projects, “low-income residential properties, where tenants are already disproportionately burdened by other environmental hazards.”

Instead of owning up to its failures and taking steps to correct the problems, Apex made misrepresentations about its compliance with federal rules, according to the Justice Department complaint. The company submitted a certification that “purported to be issued [by EPA] in 2006, four years before EPA first issued RRP [or lead rule] certifications.” The certification was “not genuine.” Apex also “submitted a cover letter purportedly authored by EPA… .But this letter, too, was not genuine”; one sure sign was that “the cover letter included the name of an EPA employee whose employment with EPA did not commence until over six years after the date of the letter.” This was brazen fraud.

The facts are not in dispute. Apex itself admitted them and took responsibility for them in the 2023 consent decree that resolved the lawsuit. The adjudicated penalty was “the second largest civil penalty ever imposed under the RRP Rule,” and it might well have been the largest, had Apex been in a stronger financial position. Instead, the civil penalty was negotiated down because Apex’s books showed it was unable to pay the full penalty that the charges merited. According to the consent decree’s proposed payment schedule (page 43), Apex will not make its final payment against this judgment until 2027.

This is obviously a red flag for the Bergen Green project, a legitimate concern for those hired to work at the site, anyone who lives near the project (as I do), and for those who will eventually live in the 12-story affordable housing complex Apex builds.

Lead dust will be just one issue at the site. Developers have already acknowledged that the building at 516 Bergen Street will require asbestos removal and remediation before it can be knocked down to make way for the tower. There are no doubt other toxins on site as well. In the 1940s, for example, there was a Gulf Dealer at that location, as Tax Photographs from the period show.

The Gulf garage was still in use decades later, long after the city had taken over the property. Today, the building sits directly across the street from a playground. Neighbors and future residents both need assurances that environmental review and environmental remediation at this site will be done responsibly.

There are also serious, unanswered questions about how Apex managed to win the contract to develop Bergen Green less than one year after the consent decree and well before Apex had finished paying off the penalty imposed by the federal court. How and why did the city give Apex a pass after this judgment? How did the 2023 SDNY complaint, injunction, and civil penalty against Apex factor into the decision-making on Bergen Green? Was Apex’s documented history of irresponsible and fraudulent business conduct at affordable housing sites taken into account when the Adams administration evaluated its Bergen Green bid? It should have been, as the city’s own Procurement Policy Board Rules require. 

To help answer these and other questions, I’ve filed three Freedom of Information requests: one with the Department of Housing and Preservation Development (FOIL-2026-806-01745); another with the Mayor’s Office of Contracts (FOIL-2026-002-01521); and a third with the Department of Investigation (FOIL-2026-032-00312). I will put these documents online as they arrive.

DOI has already responded, with two documents from the city’s PASSPort system. One, a vendor disclosure form, includes a section assessing “Vendor Integrity.” It makes no mention at all of the 2023 findings or consent decree. Question 3 on this form asks whether over the past five years the vendor has had “any sanction imposed as a result of judicial or administrative disciplinary proceedings with respect to any professional license held.” The answer given is “No.” The Contract History section asks whether Apex has ever received an unsatisfactory performance rating from any government agency (which surely includes the EPA and The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene). Again, the one word answer is “No.” The section dealing with Vendor Financial History makes no mention of the $606,000 penalty or payments against it; and in response to the question whether there are any “judgments, injunctions, or liens” against Apex, the answer is “No.” This is blatantly false.

Hopefully, records from HPD and the Mayor’s Office of Contracting will show how seriously the Adams administration took Apex’s environmental record into account when making its selection for Bergen Green. The Mamdani administration should be able to answer this question without equivocation and reassure New Yorkers that this affordable housing project is not putting workers, neighbors, and future residents at risk.

After all, affordable housing, environmental concerns, and protections for New York City workers are all among Mayor Mamdani’s core commitments. Having already failed to push for unionized labor at Bergen Green, the city now appears to be disregarding the risks of doing business with a company that repeatedly cut corners, broke the law, and committed fraud to cover it up.

The Bergen Green project could qualify for Green Fast Track environmental review, and Mamdani has pledged to speed up the permitting process for building new housing. In this case, however, the prudent thing would be to slow down, take a second look at the award process, and decide whether the current course at Bergen Green is the right one.

The Mamdani Administration Needs to Take a Second Look at the Plan for Bergen Green

The builder chosen in 2024 by the Eric Adams administration to develop the Bergen Green affordable housing project has a well-documented history of unlawful conduct that puts both workers and residents at risk.

In September of 2023, the US Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York brought a complaint against Apex Building Company (also operating as Apex Building Group) for violations of Section 409 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The ensuing case – United States of America v. Apex Building Company Inc. – resulted in a massive penalty of $606,706 for unsafe practices at five New York City affordable housing sites.

From 2015 to 2021, in “at least five distinct renovation projects, involving 21 apartment buildings and approximately 823 apartments, in New York City,” the company failed to contain lead dust, in violation of EPA rules. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene first found Apex was out of compliance at 76 Grove Street in Brooklyn. Workers were untrained and inadequately protected, and the company “failed to inform the building owner and occupants of the risks of lead poisoning.” And this was not a single, unfortunate lapse. Over the next few years, investigators documented a pattern of willful negligence at Apex projects in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx – all affordable housing projects, “low-income residential properties, where tenants are already disproportionately burdened by other environmental hazards.”

Instead of owning up to its failures and taking steps to correct the problems, Apex made misrepresentations about its compliance with federal rules, according to the Justice Department complaint. The company submitted a certification that “purported to be issued [by EPA] in 2006, four years before EPA first issued RRP [or lead rule] certifications.” The certification was “not genuine.” Apex also “submitted a cover letter purportedly authored by EPA… .But this letter, too, was not genuine”; one sure sign was that “the cover letter included the name of an EPA employee whose employment with EPA did not commence until over six years after the date of the letter.” This was brazen fraud.

The facts are not in dispute. Apex itself admitted them and took responsibility for them in the 2023 consent decree that resolved the lawsuit. The adjudicated penalty was “the second largest civil penalty ever imposed under the RRP Rule,” and it might well have been the largest, had Apex been in a stronger financial position. Instead, the civil penalty was negotiated down because Apex’s books showed it was unable to pay the full penalty that the charges merited. According to the consent decree’s proposed payment schedule (page 43), Apex will not make its final payment against this judgment until 2027.

This is obviously a red flag for the Bergen Green project, a legitimate concern for those hired to work at the site, anyone who lives near the project (as I do), and for those who will eventually live in the 12-story affordable housing complex Apex builds.

Lead dust will be just one issue at the site. Developers have already acknowledged that the building at 516 Bergen Street will require asbestos removal and remediation before it can be knocked down to make way for the tower. There are no doubt other toxins on site as well. In the 1940s, for example, there was a Gulf Dealer at that location, as Tax Photographs from the period show.

The Gulf garage was still in use decades later, long after the city had taken over the property. Today, the building sits directly across the street from a playground. Neighbors and future residents both need assurances that environmental review and environmental remediation at this site will be done responsibly.

There are also serious, unanswered questions about how Apex managed to win the contract to develop Bergen Green less than one year after the consent decree and well before Apex had finished paying off the penalty imposed by the federal court. How and why did the city give Apex a pass after this judgment? How did the 2023 SDNY complaint, injunction, and civil penalty against Apex factor into the decision-making on Bergen Green? Was Apex’s documented history of irresponsible and fraudulent business conduct at affordable housing sites taken into account when the Adams administration evaluated its Bergen Green bid? It should have been, as the city’s own Procurement Policy Board Rules require. 

To help answer these and other questions, I’ve filed three Freedom of Information requests: one with the Department of Housing and Preservation Development (FOIL-2026-806-01745); another with the Mayor’s Office of Contracts (FOIL-2026-002-01521); and a third with the Department of Investigation (FOIL-2026-032-00312). I will put these documents online as they arrive.

DOI has already responded, with two documents from the city’s PASSPort system. One, a vendor disclosure form, includes a section assessing “Vendor Integrity.” It makes no mention at all of the 2023 findings or consent decree. Question 3 on this form asks whether over the past five years the vendor has had “any sanction imposed as a result of judicial or administrative disciplinary proceedings with respect to any professional license held.” The answer given is “No.” The Contract History section asks whether Apex has ever received an unsatisfactory performance rating from any government agency (which surely includes the EPA and The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene). Again, the one word answer is “No.” The section dealing with Vendor Financial History makes no mention of the $606,000 penalty or payments against it; and in response to the question whether there are any “judgments, injunctions, or liens” against Apex, the answer is “No.” This is blatantly false.

Hopefully, records from HPD and the Mayor’s Office of Contracting will show how seriously the Adams administration took Apex’s environmental record into account when making its selection for Bergen Green. The Mamdani administration should be able to answer this question without equivocation and reassure New Yorkers that this affordable housing project is not putting workers, neighbors, and future residents at risk.

After all, affordable housing, environmental concerns, and protections for New York City workers are all among Mayor Mamdani’s core commitments. Having already failed to push for unionized labor at Bergen Green, the city now appears to be disregarding the risks of doing business with a company that repeatedly cut corners, broke the law, and committed fraud to cover it up.

The Bergen Green project could qualify for Green Fast Track environmental review, and Mamdani has pledged to speed up the permitting process for building new housing. In this case, however, the prudent thing would be to slow down, take a second look at the award process, and decide whether the current course at Bergen Green is the right one.

The Mamdani Administration Needs to Take a Second Look at the Plan for Bergen Green

The builder chosen in 2024 by the Eric Adams administration to develop the Bergen Green affordable housing project has a well-documented history of unlawful conduct that puts both workers and residents at risk.

In September of 2023, the US Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York brought a complaint against Apex Building Company (also operating as Apex Building Group) for violations of Section 409 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The ensuing case – United States of America v. Apex Building Company Inc. – resulted in a massive penalty of $606,706 for unsafe practices at five New York City affordable housing sites.

From 2015 to 2021, in “at least five distinct renovation projects, involving 21 apartment buildings and approximately 823 apartments, in New York City,” the company failed to contain lead dust, in violation of EPA rules. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene first found Apex was out of compliance at 76 Grove Street in Brooklyn. Workers were untrained and inadequately protected, and the company “failed to inform the building owner and occupants of the risks of lead poisoning.” And this was not a single, unfortunate lapse. Over the next few years, investigators documented a pattern of willful negligence at Apex projects in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx – all affordable housing projects, “low-income residential properties, where tenants are already disproportionately burdened by other environmental hazards.”

Instead of owning up to its failures and taking steps to correct the problems, Apex made misrepresentations about its compliance with federal rules, according to the Justice Department complaint. The company submitted a certification that “purported to be issued [by EPA] in 2006, four years before EPA first issued RRP [or lead rule] certifications.” The certification was “not genuine.” Apex also “submitted a cover letter purportedly authored by EPA… .But this letter, too, was not genuine”; one sure sign was that “the cover letter included the name of an EPA employee whose employment with EPA did not commence until over six years after the date of the letter.” This was brazen fraud.

The facts are not in dispute. Apex itself admitted them and took responsibility for them in the 2023 consent decree that resolved the lawsuit. The adjudicated penalty was “the second largest civil penalty ever imposed under the RRP Rule,” and it might well have been the largest, had Apex been in a stronger financial position. Instead, the civil penalty was negotiated down because Apex’s books showed it was unable to pay the full penalty that the charges merited. According to the consent decree’s proposed payment schedule (page 43), Apex will not make its final payment against this judgment until 2027.

This is obviously a red flag for the Bergen Green project, a legitimate concern for those hired to work at the site, anyone who lives near the project (as I do), and for those who will eventually live in the 12-story affordable housing complex Apex builds.

Lead dust will be just one issue at the site. Developers have already acknowledged that the building at 516 Bergen Street will require asbestos removal and remediation before it can be knocked down to make way for the tower. There are no doubt other toxins on site as well. In the 1940s, for example, there was a Gulf Dealer at that location, as Tax Photographs from the period show.

The Gulf garage was still in use decades later, long after the city had taken over the property. Today, the building sits directly across the street from a playground. Neighbors and future residents both need assurances that environmental review and environmental remediation at this site will be done responsibly.

There are also serious, unanswered questions about how Apex managed to win the contract to develop Bergen Green less than one year after the consent decree and well before Apex had finished paying off the penalty imposed by the federal court. How and why did the city give Apex a pass after this judgment? How did the 2023 SDNY complaint, injunction, and civil penalty against Apex factor into the decision-making on Bergen Green? Was Apex’s documented history of irresponsible and fraudulent business conduct at affordable housing sites taken into account when the Adams administration evaluated its Bergen Green bid? It should have been, as the city’s own Procurement Policy Board Rules require. 

To help answer these and other questions, I’ve filed three Freedom of Information requests: one with the Department of Housing and Preservation Development (FOIL-2026-806-01745); another with the Mayor’s Office of Contracts (FOIL-2026-002-01521); and a third with the Department of Investigation (FOIL-2026-032-00312). I will put these documents online as they arrive.

DOI has already responded, with two documents from the city’s PASSPort system. One, a vendor disclosure form, includes a section assessing “Vendor Integrity.” It makes no mention at all of the 2023 findings or consent decree. Question 3 on this form asks whether over the past five years the vendor has had “any sanction imposed as a result of judicial or administrative disciplinary proceedings with respect to any professional license held.” The answer given is “No.” The Contract History section asks whether Apex has ever received an unsatisfactory performance rating from any government agency (which surely includes the EPA and The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene). Again, the one word answer is “No.” The section dealing with Vendor Financial History makes no mention of the $606,000 penalty or payments against it; and in response to the question whether there are any “judgments, injunctions, or liens” against Apex, the answer is “No.” This is blatantly false.

Hopefully, records from HPD and the Mayor’s Office of Contracting will show how seriously the Adams administration took Apex’s environmental record into account when making its selection for Bergen Green. The Mamdani administration should be able to answer this question without equivocation and reassure New Yorkers that this affordable housing project is not putting workers, neighbors, and future residents at risk.

After all, affordable housing, environmental concerns, and protections for New York City workers are all among Mayor Mamdani’s core commitments. Having already failed to push for unionized labor at Bergen Green, the city now appears to be disregarding the risks of doing business with a company that repeatedly cut corners, broke the law, and committed fraud to cover it up.

The Bergen Green project could qualify for Green Fast Track environmental review, and Mamdani has pledged to speed up the permitting process for building new housing. In this case, however, the prudent thing would be to slow down, take a second look at the award process, and decide whether the current course at Bergen Green is the right one.

The Mamdani Administration Needs to Take a Second Look at the Plan for Bergen Green

The builder chosen in 2024 by the Eric Adams administration to develop the Bergen Green affordable housing project has a well-documented history of unlawful conduct that puts both workers and residents at risk.

In September of 2023, the US Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York brought a complaint against Apex Building Company (also operating as Apex Building Group) for violations of Section 409 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The ensuing case – United States of America v. Apex Building Company Inc. – resulted in a massive penalty of $606,706 for unsafe practices at five New York City affordable housing sites.

From 2015 to 2021, in “at least five distinct renovation projects, involving 21 apartment buildings and approximately 823 apartments, in New York City,” the company failed to contain lead dust, in violation of EPA rules. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene first found Apex was out of compliance at 76 Grove Street in Brooklyn. Workers were untrained and inadequately protected, and the company “failed to inform the building owner and occupants of the risks of lead poisoning.” And this was not a single, unfortunate lapse. Over the next few years, investigators documented a pattern of willful negligence at Apex projects in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx – all affordable housing projects, “low-income residential properties, where tenants are already disproportionately burdened by other environmental hazards.”

Instead of owning up to its failures and taking steps to correct the problems, Apex made misrepresentations about its compliance with federal rules, according to the Justice Department complaint. The company submitted a certification that “purported to be issued [by EPA] in 2006, four years before EPA first issued RRP [or lead rule] certifications.” The certification was “not genuine.” Apex also “submitted a cover letter purportedly authored by EPA… .But this letter, too, was not genuine”; one sure sign was that “the cover letter included the name of an EPA employee whose employment with EPA did not commence until over six years after the date of the letter.” This was brazen fraud.

The facts are not in dispute. Apex itself admitted them and took responsibility for them in the 2023 consent decree that resolved the lawsuit. The adjudicated penalty was “the second largest civil penalty ever imposed under the RRP Rule,” and it might well have been the largest, had Apex been in a stronger financial position. Instead, the civil penalty was negotiated down because Apex’s books showed it was unable to pay the full penalty that the charges merited. According to the consent decree’s proposed payment schedule (page 43), Apex will not make its final payment against this judgment until 2027.

This is obviously a red flag for the Bergen Green project, a legitimate concern for those hired to work at the site, anyone who lives near the project (as I do), and for those who will eventually live in the 12-story affordable housing complex Apex builds.

Lead dust will be just one issue at the site. Developers have already acknowledged that the building at 516 Bergen Street will require asbestos removal and remediation before it can be knocked down to make way for the tower. There are no doubt other toxins on site as well. In the 1940s, for example, there was a Gulf Dealer at that location, as Tax Photographs from the period show.

The Gulf garage was still in use decades later, long after the city had taken over the property. Today, the building sits directly across the street from a playground. Neighbors and future residents both need assurances that environmental review and environmental remediation at this site will be done responsibly.

There are also serious, unanswered questions about how Apex managed to win the contract to develop Bergen Green less than one year after the consent decree and well before Apex had finished paying off the penalty imposed by the federal court. How and why did the city give Apex a pass after this judgment? How did the 2023 SDNY complaint, injunction, and civil penalty against Apex factor into the decision-making on Bergen Green? Was Apex’s documented history of irresponsible and fraudulent business conduct at affordable housing sites taken into account when the Adams administration evaluated its Bergen Green bid? It should have been, as the city’s own Procurement Policy Board Rules require. 

To help answer these and other questions, I’ve filed three Freedom of Information requests: one with the Department of Housing and Preservation Development (FOIL-2026-806-01745); another with the Mayor’s Office of Contracts (FOIL-2026-002-01521); and a third with the Department of Investigation (FOIL-2026-032-00312). I will put these documents online as they arrive.

DOI has already responded, with two documents from the city’s PASSPort system. One, a vendor disclosure form, includes a section assessing “Vendor Integrity.” It makes no mention at all of the 2023 findings or consent decree. Question 3 on this form asks whether over the past five years the vendor has had “any sanction imposed as a result of judicial or administrative disciplinary proceedings with respect to any professional license held.” The answer given is “No.” The Contract History section asks whether Apex has ever received an unsatisfactory performance rating from any government agency (which surely includes the EPA and The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene). Again, the one word answer is “No.” The section dealing with Vendor Financial History makes no mention of the $606,000 penalty or payments against it; and in response to the question whether there are any “judgments, injunctions, or liens” against Apex, the answer is “No.” This is blatantly false.

Hopefully, records from HPD and the Mayor’s Office of Contracting will show how seriously the Adams administration took Apex’s environmental record into account when making its selection for Bergen Green. The Mamdani administration should be able to answer this question without equivocation and reassure New Yorkers that this affordable housing project is not putting workers, neighbors, and future residents at risk.

After all, affordable housing, environmental concerns, and protections for New York City workers are all among Mayor Mamdani’s core commitments. Having already failed to push for unionized labor at Bergen Green, the city now appears to be disregarding the risks of doing business with a company that repeatedly cut corners, broke the law, and committed fraud to cover it up.

The Bergen Green project could qualify for Green Fast Track environmental review, and Mamdani has pledged to speed up the permitting process for building new housing. In this case, however, the prudent thing would be to slow down, take a second look at the award process, and decide whether the current course at Bergen Green is the right one.

The Mamdani Administration Needs to Take a Second Look at the Plan for Bergen Green

The builder chosen in 2024 by the Eric Adams administration to develop the Bergen Green affordable housing project has a well-documented history of unlawful conduct that puts both workers and residents at risk.

In September of 2023, the US Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York brought a complaint against Apex Building Company (also operating as Apex Building Group) for violations of Section 409 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The ensuing case – United States of America v. Apex Building Company Inc. – resulted in a massive penalty of $606,706 for unsafe practices at five New York City affordable housing sites.

From 2015 to 2021, in “at least five distinct renovation projects, involving 21 apartment buildings and approximately 823 apartments, in New York City,” the company failed to contain lead dust, in violation of EPA rules. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene first found Apex was out of compliance at 76 Grove Street in Brooklyn. Workers were untrained and inadequately protected, and the company “failed to inform the building owner and occupants of the risks of lead poisoning.” And this was not a single, unfortunate lapse. Over the next few years, investigators documented a pattern of willful negligence at Apex projects in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx – all affordable housing projects, “low-income residential properties, where tenants are already disproportionately burdened by other environmental hazards.”

Instead of owning up to its failures and taking steps to correct the problems, Apex made misrepresentations about its compliance with federal rules, according to the Justice Department complaint. The company submitted a certification that “purported to be issued [by EPA] in 2006, four years before EPA first issued RRP [or lead rule] certifications.” The certification was “not genuine.” Apex also “submitted a cover letter purportedly authored by EPA… .But this letter, too, was not genuine”; one sure sign was that “the cover letter included the name of an EPA employee whose employment with EPA did not commence until over six years after the date of the letter.” This was brazen fraud.

The facts are not in dispute. Apex itself admitted them and took responsibility for them in the 2023 consent decree that resolved the lawsuit. The adjudicated penalty was “the second largest civil penalty ever imposed under the RRP Rule,” and it might well have been the largest, had Apex been in a stronger financial position. Instead, the civil penalty was negotiated down because Apex’s books showed it was unable to pay the full penalty that the charges merited. According to the consent decree’s proposed payment schedule (page 43), Apex will not make its final payment against this judgment until 2027.

This is obviously a red flag for the Bergen Green project, a legitimate concern for those hired to work at the site, anyone who lives near the project (as I do), and for those who will eventually live in the 12-story affordable housing complex Apex builds.

Lead dust will be just one issue at the site. Developers have already acknowledged that the building at 516 Bergen Street will require asbestos removal and remediation before it can be knocked down to make way for the tower. There are no doubt other toxins on site as well. In the 1940s, for example, there was a Gulf Dealer at that location, as Tax Photographs from the period show.

The Gulf garage was still in use decades later, long after the city had taken over the property. Today, the building sits directly across the street from a playground. Neighbors and future residents both need assurances that environmental review and environmental remediation at this site will be done responsibly.

There are also serious, unanswered questions about how Apex managed to win the contract to develop Bergen Green less than one year after the consent decree and well before Apex had finished paying off the penalty imposed by the federal court. How and why did the city give Apex a pass after this judgment? How did the 2023 SDNY complaint, injunction, and civil penalty against Apex factor into the decision-making on Bergen Green? Was Apex’s documented history of irresponsible and fraudulent business conduct at affordable housing sites taken into account when the Adams administration evaluated its Bergen Green bid? It should have been, as the city’s own Procurement Policy Board Rules require. 

To help answer these and other questions, I’ve filed three Freedom of Information requests: one with the Department of Housing and Preservation Development (FOIL-2026-806-01745); another with the Mayor’s Office of Contracts (FOIL-2026-002-01521); and a third with the Department of Investigation (FOIL-2026-032-00312). I will put these documents online as they arrive.

DOI has already responded, with two documents from the city’s PASSPort system. One, a vendor disclosure form, includes a section assessing “Vendor Integrity.” It makes no mention at all of the 2023 findings or consent decree. Question 3 on this form asks whether over the past five years the vendor has had “any sanction imposed as a result of judicial or administrative disciplinary proceedings with respect to any professional license held.” The answer given is “No.” The Contract History section asks whether Apex has ever received an unsatisfactory performance rating from any government agency (which surely includes the EPA and The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene). Again, the one word answer is “No.” The section dealing with Vendor Financial History makes no mention of the $606,000 penalty or payments against it; and in response to the question whether there are any “judgments, injunctions, or liens” against Apex, the answer is “No.” This is blatantly false.

Hopefully, records from HPD and the Mayor’s Office of Contracting will show how seriously the Adams administration took Apex’s environmental record into account when making its selection for Bergen Green. The Mamdani administration should be able to answer this question without equivocation and reassure New Yorkers that this affordable housing project is not putting workers, neighbors, and future residents at risk.

After all, affordable housing, environmental concerns, and protections for New York City workers are all among Mayor Mamdani’s core commitments. Having already failed to push for unionized labor at Bergen Green, the city now appears to be disregarding the risks of doing business with a company that repeatedly cut corners, broke the law, and committed fraud to cover it up.

The Bergen Green project could qualify for Green Fast Track environmental review, and Mamdani has pledged to speed up the permitting process for building new housing. In this case, however, the prudent thing would be to slow down, take a second look at the award process, and decide whether the current course at Bergen Green is the right one.