▁Those ▁named ▁in ▁the ▁compla int ▁included ▁L G ▁Properties , ▁the ▁company ' s ▁president ▁Philip ▁P app as , ▁and ▁George ▁K out rou mos , ▁the ▁contract or ▁who ▁built ▁the ▁bal con y . ▁The ▁city ▁was ▁reported ly ▁seeking ▁$ 5 0 0 ▁per ▁viol ation ▁for ▁each ▁day ▁the ▁structure ▁was ▁in ▁existence , ▁total ing ▁hundreds ▁of ▁thousands ▁of ▁dollars , ▁and ▁a ▁court ▁order ▁for ▁the ▁replacement ▁of ▁the ▁bal con y . ▁The ▁a partment ▁block ▁was ▁leg ally ▁un in hab itable ▁until ▁the ▁bal con ies ▁were ▁replaced , ▁as ▁they ▁provided ▁mand atory ▁emer gency ▁ex its . ▁The ▁city ' s ▁Build ings ▁Department ▁ins pected ▁ 4 2 ▁other ▁buildings ▁owned ▁or ▁managed ▁by ▁P app as ▁and / or ▁L G ▁Properties ▁for ▁similar ▁viol ations . ▁The ▁city ▁also ▁claimed ▁that ▁ 2 1 ▁other ▁buildings ▁owned ▁by ▁P app as ▁had ▁similar ▁problems . ▁They ▁did , ▁however , ▁note ▁the ▁fact ▁that ▁he ▁had ▁since ▁made ▁" d ram atic ▁improvements " ▁to ▁all ▁ 2 1 ▁por ches . ▁ ▁In ▁the ▁after math ▁of ▁the ▁dis aster , ▁Chicago ▁ins pected ▁a ▁large ▁number ▁of ▁similar ▁structures ▁to ▁ensure ▁they ▁were ▁safe , ▁with ▁ 5 0 0 ▁cases ▁being ▁turned ▁over ▁to ▁the ▁city ' s ▁Law ▁Department ▁for ▁court ▁action , ▁and ▁ 7 6 0 ▁cases ▁referred ▁to ▁administrative ▁hearing ▁officers . ▁ ▁P app as ▁continued ▁to ▁bl ame