NY Roofing - Professional Gutter Replacement Services in Brooklyn

  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 NY Roofing
  
 166 Google reviews 
 
 Write a review 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Posted on Google  
 
  
 
 
 Jailene Marte 
 
0 days ago
 
 
 Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. 
+2
The biggest problem with my old roof was how long water remained after it rained.  NY Roofing added slope beneath the new surface so more of it would reach the drain. There is still a small shallow area after a very heavy storm, but it disappears the same day instead of sitting there all week. That feels like a realistic improvement rather than an exaggerated promise. Overall, Im pleased with the replacement.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Posted on Google  
 
  
 
 
 Some One 
 
6 days ago
 
 
 Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. 
Weather changed the schedule more than once. That was frustrating, but I understood why the work couldn’t be completed safely in poor conditions. We received revised dates instead of being left wondering what was happening. Once the weather cooperated, the full roof replacement project moved quickly. The delay did not affect the final result and everything was handled well
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Posted on Google  
 
  
 
 
 Daniel Pess 
 
9 days ago
 
 
 Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. 
Everything went smoothly from the initial appointment onward. The NY Roofing team communicated well and followed through on everything outlined in the replacement plan. They were respectful of the property and easy to speak with. The workmanship appears clean and carefully completed. I am happy to recommend them.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Posted on Google  
 
  
 
 
 Kylie Bartolomeo 
 
72 days ago
 
 
 Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. 
A small rooftop greenhouse made our flat-roof replacement unusual. The greenhouse curb stayed in place, but the membrane around it had failed at two corners and water was reaching the room below. Condensation inside the greenhouse was evaluated separately from rain entry around its base.
The plants and movable equipment were relocated before roofing began. Glass panels were protected while the old membrane and wet insulation were removed from the greenhouse perimeter. The main roof was replaced at the same time because it showed widespread seam deterioration.
One deck section required repair beside the greenhouse entrance. New tapered insulation directed water away from the curb, and compatible membrane flashing was extended to the required height. The door threshold was also integrated into the new work.
A small spot of primer ended up on the lower greenhouse frame. It was cleaned before curing, and the glass protection remained in place until the final inspection. The plants returned after the specified waiting period.
The greenhouse still produces normal interior humidity, but rain no longer reaches the room below. The distinction between condensation and roof leakage made the final result easier to evaluate.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Posted on Google  
 
  
 
 
 amanda frusco 
 
72 days ago
 
 
 Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. 
The leak that finally pushed us to replace the roof did not happen during rain. It appeared while old snow was melting, right in the center of the upstairs hallway. That location made no sense from below because there was no drain, pipe, or visible roof penetration above it.
The roof inspection found a rectangular outline beneath several layers of coating. Records from a previous owner did not mention it, but a test opening confirmed that an old skylight had been covered instead of properly removed. Moisture had spread from that area into the surrounding insulation.
We were offered a repair that would open and rebuild the former skylight location. The complete replacement option addressed the wet insulation, aging membrane, low area near the rear drain, and multiple coats hiding older repairs. Since the documented roof age was already approaching 18 years, we selected replacement.
Tear-off revealed that the skylight opening had been closed with uneven pieces of wood supported only at the edges. The opening was reframed and sheathed properly, and four additional damaged deck boards were replaced nearby. New tapered insulation created a smoother path toward the drain before the modified-bitumen system and parapet flashing were installed.
The afternoon update on the main tear-off day arrived much later than promised, which was stressful because the weather was changing. Everything had already been secured, but a simple message would have prevented the concern. Communication was much more consistent for the remaining work.
The rear yard, hatch stairs, and neighboring side passage were cleaned at completion. A few coating fragments were found behind an outdoor storage box and removed during the walkthrough. We received photographs showing the original skylight opening, new framing, decking, insulation, and finished membrane.
The roof has now gone through another winter thaw and several long rains. The hallway ceiling remains dry, and water no longer sits behind the rear drain. The most valuable part of the project was finally turning a hidden patch into a documented, structurally closed roof section.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Posted on Google  
 
  
 
 
 Cathy Young 
 
73 days ago
 
 
 Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. 
Our rooftop terrace used concrete pavers on adjustable pedestals rather than a wood deck. The membrane beneath them could not be inspected fully until the pavers were lifted, although recurring moisture below the terrace suggested the old roof had failed. The removal plan mattered because we hoped to reuse most of the pavers. Each paver was marked and moved to a protected staging area. Once exposed, the membrane showed punctures beneath several tilted pedestals and wet insulation around the drain. The deck itself required only one localized repair. New insulation and membrane were installed with a clearer route toward the drain. Protective pads were placed beneath the reset pedestals, and a removable paver section now identifies the drain-access point. The terrace layout changed slightly to keep that area usable. Two pavers cracked during removal. That possibility had been discussed beforehand, and matching replacements were supplied before the terrace reopened. Some dust remained on the parapet walls and was washed down during the final visit. The terrace has been back in use for several months, and the room below remains dry. Water can be checked at the drain without dismantling a large portion of the surface. Reusing most of the pavers kept the finished appearance familiar while giving the concealed roof a complete replacement.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Posted on Google  
 
  
 
 
 Amore Batista 
 
73 days ago
 
 
 Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. 
Fragments from deteriorating masonry on the taller neighboring building in Flatbush had punctured our flat roof in several places. Temporary repairs stopped the active leaks, but replacing the membrane before the adjacent wall was stabilized would have exposed the new roof to the same damage. The masonry work therefore had to come first. After the neighboring wall was repaired, the roof received a new inspection and moisture testing. Wet insulation extended beyond two punctures, while other impact areas had not penetrated fully. We selected complete replacement with NY Roofing Brooklyn because the existing membrane was already worn and heavily patched. The deck remained structurally sound throughout the affected zone. New insulation, membrane, parapet flashing, and protective walkway material were installed after the masonry phase ended. Photographs documented both the impact damage and the bare deck. Masonry dust continued to fall for part of the first roofing day and had to be cleaned before installation proceeded. That slowed the start but prevented debris from being trapped in the new system. The neighboring access agreement also added a few scheduling calls. Several months later, the membrane remains undamaged and the former interior leaks are dry. Sequencing the masonry before the roofing was inconvenient, but it prevented a new roof from becoming another temporary repair.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Posted on Google  
 
  
 
 
 shardaisa mixon 
 
75 days ago
 
 
 Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. 
Our building has three flat-roof levels, but only the lowest section was failing. The upper roofs were replaced more recently and remained dry, while the lower membrane had open seams, wet insulation, and repeated damage where runoff landed from above. We wanted each level evaluated separately. The proposal replaced the lower section and retained both upper roofs. A new conductor carried runoff from the highest level to the lower drain instead of allowing it to discharge freely onto the membrane. The landing area received additional protection for the water that still reached that roof. Removal found one deteriorated deck section near the lower drain. The wood quantity was documented before insulation and membrane installation continued. Flashing at the height transitions was rebuilt rather than coated again. Some materials remained staged on the middle roof for an extra day after the lower section was complete. Nothing was damaged, but we asked that the load be removed before a scheduled equipment visit. It was cleared that afternoon. Later rain confirmed that the new conductor was directing water as intended. The lower roof drains faster, and the two serviceable upper roofs were left out of the replacement scope.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Posted on Google  
 
  
 
 
 Jessica Martin 
 
76 days ago
 
 
 Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. 
We were one leak away from paying for another patch when we finally priced the complete flat-roof replacement. There were repairs around two plumbing vents, an abandoned skylight, and an old exhaust opening that no longer served anything. The roof had become difficult to maintain because nobody knew which surface patch covered which original penetration.
The replacement was more than we could comfortably pay in cash. We applied directly with a third-party lender and qualified for a monthly payment plan with no money due upfront under the lender’s approved terms. The roofing business did not provide the financing or make the approval decision.
Once the existing layers were removed, the abandoned skylight and exhaust openings were closed properly at the deck rather than covered with new surface patches. Moisture damage was limited to the skylight perimeter and a small section near the rear wall. Both wood repairs were photographed and deducted from the stated allowance by actual quantity.
New insulation, membrane, plumbing-vent flashing, drain detailing, and parapet work completed the system. The lender paperwork delayed the start by two business days, but the construction schedule remained steady once approval was received. One expected afternoon update was also late, although nothing was left exposed.
A few fasteners were found in the rear courtyard after the first cleanup. Someone returned with a magnet and checked both our yard and the narrow area beside the neighboring property. We have not found additional debris.
Several months and multiple storms later, all three former penetration areas remain dry. Financing did not make the roof less expensive, but it allowed us to remove obsolete openings and replace the full system instead of choosing another single patch.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 Posted on Google  
 
  
 
 
 Mubarak Olukotun 
 
77 days ago
 
 
 Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. 
The main issue with our flat roof was the transition between two additions built at different times. One section sat several inches higher than the other, and water collected against the step between them. Previous repairs added more roofing material to the same location without changing where the water went. Rather than beginning with a replacement recommendation, the estimator measured the elevations and poured a small amount of water to observe the drainage route. The rear scupper was high relative to the low area, while an improvised patch had created another ridge in front of it. We were shown why sealing the visible seam again would not correct the drainage. The agreed scope included removing both roof surfaces, inspecting the decking, rebuilding the transition, and lowering the drainage path to the scupper. A tapered cricket was designed to move water away from the wall and toward the outlet. The scupper and exterior conductor head were replaced as part of the same system. Hidden conditions were limited to one soft decking section along the older addition. The newer section did not require wood replacement. I liked that the photographs included both areas because it made clear why only one appeared on the additional-work total.
Installation took an extra half day when the masonry opening around the scupper required more preparation than expected. We received the update before the additional work began. The only thing that bothered us was a small amount of dust that entered through an old vent in the rear room, but it was easily cleaned. A thunderstorm arrived about ten days later and gave us a good chance to observe the new drainage. Water moved around the rebuilt transition and exited through the scupper without collecting against the higher roof. The repair makes visual sense now because the shape of the roof actually directs water instead of relying on sealant to hold it back.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Verified by Trustindex  
Trustindex verified badge is the Universal Symbol of Trust. Only the greatest companies can get the verified badge who has a review score above 4.5, based on customer reviews over the past 12 months. Read more