623 Ingram Avenue: Gut Renovation Project Dossier

One renovation, several different evidence states

The address is 623 Ingram Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10314, BIN 5019938, BBL 5007770067. This dossier follows the renovation job S01317123 and checks other work recorded at the same BIN. Research was checked on November 11, 2026. It is an investigation of public records, with practical comparisons derived from those records; we have not inspected the house or interviewed the owner, architect or contractors.

The DOB filing for general construction describes a two-story building with a cellar. It records one existing and one proposed dwelling unit. PLUTO 26v2 instead records building class B2, two residential units, two floors and a 1970 year-built value. These are different administrative sources, not a basis for deciding the house’s legal occupancy. Before using this project as a reference for a conversion, obtain the occupancy record and approved plans. A Letter of Completion does not resolve that discrepancy by itself. See DOB’s CO and Letter of Completion guidance.

Who holds each construction permit

The permit dataset names ALFONSO’S HOME IMPROVEMEN, GC 608017, on four construction work types. The job-filings dataset names Focal Point Architects & Ass., RA 040256, as the design applicant. Those are different roles even though both datasets use an “applicant” field. The names and numbers below describe the reviewed filings; they do not replace a current license and insurance check before hiring.

The plumbing row is particularly useful: it identifies a trade permit holder rather than requiring an inference from the GC’s project history. Its recorded expiry is December 23, 2026. An expiry in the future is not a completion approval. The four Alfonso’s permits record an October 17, 2026 expiry alongside Signed-off; expiry and closeout are separate fields.

Sources: I-P permits and I-F filings.

What “gut renovation” includes at this address

The general construction description spans the cellar, first floor and second floor, plus the facade and rear construction. It is broader than a kitchen-and-bath refresh. The related structural and foundation descriptions add information absent from the GC summary.

The GC summary’s removal of a rear extension and the structural summary’s reference to an addition should be read together against the drawings. The text alone cannot establish whether they refer to the same location, a redesigned proposal or different parts of the building. A bidder should mark both on one drawing set before pricing.

For another house, the transferable lesson is the division into packages. The cellar, occupied floors, exterior envelope and rear structure create different quantities and interfaces. A single “complete gut” allowance gives no way to check whether two proposals cover the same work.

The filing history is not a construction diary

DOB’s Build FAQ defines I as initial, S as subsequent and P as a post-approval amendment. The ten returned rows in the S01317123 family therefore do not mean ten completed projects.

The interval from permit issuance to a sign-off entry is not a measured construction duration. Procurement, inactive periods, inspection scheduling and record updates are not reconstructed here. No start-to-finish performance claim is made about Alfonso’s.

Electrical work has its own companies and statuses

The electrical dataset returns three same-BIN applications. None returns a construction-job reference in the selected const_bis_job_number field. Their address and timing make them useful context; they do not prove a subcontract to Alfonso’s or that every electrical item formed part of the same renovation contract.

We use the explicit status fields, not the electrical dataset’s completion_date alone: the open whole-house wiring row contains a future date. A dated field must not override “Job in Process.” Separate construction solar filing S01283415-I1 also appears at this BIN, naming Sunday Energy LLC on the permit; it is not part of job S01317123 and is excluded from the renovation cost discussion.

For an owner comparing gut-renovation proposals, this is a concrete reason to ask who covers branch wiring, service equipment and solar interfaces, and which closeout belongs to each. DOB’s residential alteration guidance describes the separate electrical permit and licensed electrical contractor role. A GC reference does not establish that role.

The $338,300 figure is a filing estimate

S1 records an initial/estimated job cost of $338,300. P1 and P2 repeat that value. The reviewed structural, foundation, fence and plumbing rows each record $1,000. These are filing figures; no signed contract, schedule of values, paid invoice, change-order ledger or final cost affidavit was reviewed.

Do not add the amendment rows to calculate a project total. Do not treat the repeated $1,000 entries as credible installed prices for complete structural, foundation or plumbing packages. The dataset does not explain how cost was allocated among these filings.

The GC filing also records 3,383 square feet of total construction floor area, whereas PLUTO records 2,086 square feet of building area. We have no measured plans reconciling those fields. Dividing $338,300 by either figure would create a precise-looking renovation rate with an unverified denominator and unverified cost coverage. This dossier therefore does not publish a $/sq-ft benchmark.

For a useful estimate, first measure the work by level and component. Require a separate cost for demolition, partitions/framing, exterior work, rear structure, plumbing, electrical, finishes, professional/filing fees and access. Identify allowances, owner-supplied items and concealed-condition pricing before comparing totals.

Listed requirements versus completed inspection evidence

The application data lists these requirements. It does not include the individual reports, test results or photographs. Even where LOC Issued is returned, the list itself is not a record of a particular inspector’s visit.

The steel and I-joist labels do not establish the installed member schedule, quantity or location. The absence of a value in S4’s special-inspection field is not a blanket exemption. Obtain the actual technical reports and approved documents for the work being evaluated. DOB’s sign-off guidance explains why inspection reports and final submissions matter in closeout.

Use the record to make your own bids comparable

This is an owner’s comparison worksheet derived from the interfaces above, not the recorded contract or construction sequence at 623 Ingram. Give each bidder the same approved drawing revision. For every line record a quantity, fixed price or allowance, responsible firm, exclusions and the document that will demonstrate completion.

Three answers make a reference check much more useful: which of these packages the company actually performed, which it subcontracted, and which documents the owner can provide to confirm the result. A reference for interior finishes alone does not establish experience with an addition, footing changes or coordinated trade closeout.

What would turn this into a verified built-work case study

The public records support a substantial renovation scope and named permit holders. They do not yet support an illustrated “before → process → finished result” account. The next material request should be specific:

1. Approved plans and amendment index: S1/S3/S4/S5 plus P1–P4 and P6, with the revisions mapped to their parent filings. This would resolve the extension/addition relationship and quantify the work.
2. Closeout documents: issued LOCs, inspection/technical reports, and the current plumbing and whole-house electrical status. This would separate closed construction packages from unresolved trade records.
3. Dated photographs with reuse permission: pre-demolition views, opened structural/foundation conditions, facade/deck interfaces before concealment and matched finished views. Each image should identify the location and responsible company.
4. A redacted scope and cost record: signed scope, schedule of values, allowances and changes. This would establish cost coverage rather than treating the filing estimate as a paid price.
5. Project-team confirmation: who performed each package, the relationship between the same-address electrical jobs and the renovation, and a permissioned owner reference. This would establish execution roles that an address match cannot.

The DOB NOW public portal displayed a US-only access restriction during this research, so its drawings and issued documents were not reviewed. This is an access limitation, not a finding that the documents do not exist. No project photographs, performance measurements, owner testimonial or workmanship rating are implied by this dossier.

Check the exact official records

The narrative and tables remain readable without loading external data. Expand a source to load a short preview from NYC Open Data; use its Original JSON link for all returned rows. Queries are bounded to the identifiers above. A current response can differ from this dated review.

Show dataHide dataI-E · All three same-BIN electrical applications

Original JSON data ↗ · About the NYC DOB NOW electrical permit applications dataset ↗

Show dataHide dataI-L · PLUTO 26v2 tax-lot characteristics

Original JSON data ↗ · About the NYC Planning PLUTO dataset ↗

Show dataHide dataI-O · Filing occupancy and construction-area fields

Original JSON data ↗ · About the NYC DOB NOW job application filings dataset ↗

Show dataHide dataI-T · Listed inspection requirements for S1, S3 and S4

Original JSON data ↗ · About the NYC DOB NOW job application filings dataset ↗

Continue with the building record, Alfonso’s contractor record, or Staten Island gut-renovation comparison. These links serve different checks: the dossier explains the project; the contractor record holds the dated company checks.