The former Grove Street School in Providence was the subject of a hearing yesterday in Superior Court before Judge Daniel A. Procaccini. A tarpaulin covers part of the building.

The Providence Journal / Andrew Dickerman

PROVIDENCE — The demolition work that began this week on the food and produce terminal on Harris Avenue might have ramifications beyond the destruction of the historic building: one judge thinks it could influence a court case well under way.

Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Procaccini was weighing the issues last week on the Grove Street School demolition case that he had heard in November. In that case, the 100-year-old school was heavily damaged when a demolition contractor began ripping it apart Feb. 3 without a completed building permit. The city took the owner, the Tarro family, to court, charging that the demolition was illegal, and with testimony concluded, Procaccini was getting ready to issue his decision.

Then he read in the Journal about the demolition of the produce terminal — and decided that the Grove Street School case needed to be re-opened and the city’s building official put back on the stand to testify again.

At a court hearing yesterday, Procaccini said he “stopped in my tracks” when he read a Jan. 11 Journal article on the emergency demolition of the Providence Fruit and Produce Warehouse Co. building, known as the farmer’s market or the food and produce terminal.

He read that city Building Official Kerry Anderson had ordered that owner Carpionato Properties immediately get a permit for the emergency demolition of the 1929 building on the grounds that it was a public safety hazard.

To Procaccini, the two cases seemed remarkably similar — old, vacant buildings in poor shape, regularly accessed by vagrants, with moisture doing continual damage to both structures.

In one case, Grove Street School, Anderson decided to wait and see what the court desired and did not issue an emergency demolition permit to take down the building. But when judging the farmer’s market building, Anderson ordered demolition as soon as possible.

Why, Procaccini wondered, did he make such different decisions in what seemed to be similar circumstances?

Procaccini yesterday took the rare move of reopening the record on the Grove Street trial and will call Anderson to the stand and interview him personally. It is the first time in his judicial career that he has reopened a record after it has been closed, he said.

“I am surprised and disturbed — when I picked up the Providence Journal on January 11, and to my surprise, I read about actually a place I used to visit,” noting that his father used to work at the terminal. “When I read the paper, what struck me in particular was the description of the farmer’s market, which sounded similar, if not identical, to the Grove Street School,” Procaccini said.

Procaccini said he needs to ask Anderson himself why there is an “almost identical situation and I see the building inspector has made entirely different decisions.”

The Tarro family bought the Grove Street School at auction from the city in 1982. The Tarros operate A. Tarro & Sons Funeral Home nearby and have long been interested in demolishing the school to create parking.

The building has been covered by a tarp since Bilray Demolition began ripping it apart Feb. 3 without a completed building permit. The demolition was partially complete when residents informed the police and city officials, and the work was halted. The building is now protected by an injunction preventing further work.

The produce terminal is owned by Carpionato Properties, which bought it from the state in February 2007. The developer wants to build a retail and hotel complex at the site. Last summer, Carpionato asked Anderson to inspect the building, asserting that it might be unsafe.

Anderson made two visits, and on Dec. 28 issued an order requiring Carpionato to obtain a demolition permit, which it secured on Jan. 9. The state tried to sue to stop the demolition, but was shot down in Superior Court on Monday.

On Monday, Carpionato started demolition in earnest. Officials at the State Department of Transportation, which had owned the building, said yesterday they had still not decided whether to appeal Monday’s Superior Court decision.

Procaccini said he could not reconcile the fact that Anderson had issued emergency demolition permits for the produce terminal in December and the former police and fire station in LaSalle Square last summer, but did not in the case of the school.

“I have trouble squaring the evidence I have with the description of the farmer’s market. While a building official has discretion, discretion has boundaries, legal boundaries,” Procaccini said.

“I don’t consider that carrying out his responsibilities under the law,” he added.

Deming Sherman, an attorney representing the city, said the judge should not assume the cases are totally similar based on a newspaper article.

“The assumption is that there is a similarity between the two cases. There are vast differences,” he said.

Procaccini said he understood that the circumstances surrounding the two incidents might be different — but said that in his opinion, the conditions of the buildings, at least, are similarly poor.

He toured the Grove Street School recently and said that if anything, it might be in worse shape than the produce terminal.

“I viewed that property, walked through it. Almost fell in a hole in the first floor of the building,” Procaccini said. “I was told ‘Don’t go into the basement,’ because people who use crack use that as their gathering spot to use drugs.”

Procaccini told the attorneys for both sides to return on Jan. 28, when he will put Anderson on the stand and question him. Each side will also be allowed to cross-examine the city building official.

In the meantime, Procaccini urged Anderson to take another look at the Grove Street School, which Anderson said he had not inspected since July.

“I might not have to make a decision in this case, if he goes and finds the building in a similar state,” Procaccini said.

Michael St. Pierre, representing two of the four Tarro siblings, said he also thought the record should be re-opened when he saw reports of the produce terminal. He filed papers Monday informing the judge that he felt the events of the past week at the terminal deserve consideration in the Grove Street case.

“When I saw the quotes in the paper, I had the same reaction,” St. Pierre said.

dbarbari@projo.com