Robert Tan Gerrard +Tan Architects defective plans, negligent, negligence, incorrect billing, over billing, temper problem, abandoned client New York New York

ROBERT TAN ARCHITECT ABANDON'S HIS OWN CLIENT FOR NO GOOD REASON

On October 3, 2014, Robert Tan pulled out of our project without good cause under NYC dept of Buildings Job No. 100499925 after we asked him to correct his billing on a one page letter he sent to the NYC Loft board and charged us $550 for that letter, which was meant to correct his own prior error on plans he drafted. He made an error on our plans sent to the NYC Loft Board and he billed us for his own negligence. This was not the first time Robert Tan made an error on our plans that he billed us for his negligence. When I asked him to correct his billing, he said quote "Please find another architect, do not pay my invoices, I will let the DOB and LB that I have resigned from the project. Please have someone supersede me, 
Robert"

This was very unprofessional and bad behavior on his part caused by Robert Tan himself.

I found Robert Tan to be a very temperamental person who used the fact that he can pullout of our project to take advantage of us with his billing practices. In other words, if we disagreed with Robert Tan, he would threaten to pull out of the project and notify all the agencies (I have personally witnessed Robert Tan arguing with another client in his office). 

Unfortunately, Robert Tan is NOT a person I would want to work with again nor would I refer him to anyone due to his very temperamental nature that could leave someone in a bad position in the midde of a project. In the case of Mapama Corp. v. New York City Loft Bd. Supreme Court, New York County, New York.March 14, 201130 Misc.3d 1234(A)924 N.Y.S.2d 3102011 N.Y. Slip Op. 50355(U) Robert Tan's negligence in filing an extension application severely harmed another landlord who was prevented from receiving a legalization extension that prevented him from collecting rents under the MDL law of NYC. In that case, the Court stated: 

"Mr. Tan's terse April 17, 2007 letter simply requests an extension. The letter fails to state what steps, if any, had been taken by the owner to legalize the building prior to the May 1, 2007 deadline established by Justice Stone. Nor was any documentary evidence submitted with the letter corroborating the existence of conditions beyond the owner's control, as required by Section 2–01(b)(2)."