What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 14 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: 6 Other Building / Code Compliance summonses; 3 Site Safety / Safeguarding summonses; 2 Zoning / Parking / Use summonses; 2 Failure to Maintain summonses; Sign / Awning / Advertising. The hearing dates are October 15, 2026, October 29, 2026; the source issue date(s) are July 11, 2026, July 23, 2026.
Important: The discussion below identifies correction paths, hearing issues and evidence worth investigating from the summons data. It does not state that a defense will succeed. OATH decides liability from the evidence and law presented in the case.
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 35686381J
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 11, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: SITE SAFETY MANAGER FAILURE TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANINCIDENT AS REQUIRED. AS NOTED: ON JULY 11TH 2026 DOB PERFORMED A SITEINSPECTION AND OBSERVED THAT NO NOTIFICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPA
Cited provision(s): 193 — BC 3310.8.2 SITE SAFETY MANAGER/COORDINATOR FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DEPAR
How this type of condition is typically resolved
These charges focus on protection of workers, occupants, neighboring property or the public during construction. Correction normally requires fixing the specific unsafe condition, documenting required safety measures and keeping the required site records current.
Hearing issues to verify
- What precise safety measure does the summons say was missing or inadequate?
- Was the condition temporary and corrected before or during the inspection?
- Did an approved site-safety plan or required site document address the cited condition?
Evidence that may matter
- Site Safety Plan / logistics drawings
- Daily safety logs and competent-person/site-safety records
- Photographs taken around the inspection time
- Contractor or safety-manager statements and correction records
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 35686383N
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENT FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF AN INCIDENT AS REQUIRED. AS NOTED: ON JULY 23RD 2026 DOB PERFORMED A SITE INSPECTION AND OBSERVED THAT NO NOTIFICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO
Cited provision(s): 1G4 — BC 3301.13.10 CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENT FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DEPARTMEN
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The first step is to read the inspector's narrative together with every cited code section and determine exactly what act, condition or missing filing DOB alleges. The correction and hearing strategy should then be built around that specific charge rather than a generic violation-removal checklist.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the summons identify the correct property, respondent, date and observed condition?
- Do agency records support or contradict the inspector's description?
- Was the condition corrected, permitted or otherwise resolved before the hearing?
Evidence that may matter
- Official DOB/OATH property and summons records
- Dated photographs and videos
- Permits, approved plans and inspection results
- Contracts, receipts, professional letters or witness statements tied to the cited condition
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 35686385R
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: GENERAL CONTRACTOR/PERMIT HOLDER FAILED TO PROMPTLY NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF AN INCIDENT AS REQUIRED. AS NOTED: ON JULY 23RD 2026 DOB PERFORMED A SITE INSPECTION AND OBSERVED THAT NO NOTIFICATION WAS SUBMITTED
Cited provision(s): 192 — BC 3301.8 FAILURE TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF AN ACCIDENT AT CONSTRU
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The first step is to read the inspector's narrative together with every cited code section and determine exactly what act, condition or missing filing DOB alleges. The correction and hearing strategy should then be built around that specific charge rather than a generic violation-removal checklist.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the summons identify the correct property, respondent, date and observed condition?
- Do agency records support or contradict the inspector's description?
- Was the condition corrected, permitted or otherwise resolved before the hearing?
Evidence that may matter
- Official DOB/OATH property and summons records
- Dated photographs and videos
- Permits, approved plans and inspection results
- Contracts, receipts, professional letters or witness statements tied to the cited condition
Zoning / Parking / Use — Summons 35686388M
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENT FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF AN INCIDENT AS REQUIRED. AS NOTED: ON JULY 11TH 2026 DOB PERFORMED A SITE INSPECTION AND OBSERVED THAT NO NOTIFICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO
Cited provision(s): 164 — ZR 22-32 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY HAS IMPERMISSIBLE ADVERTISING SIGN IN AN R
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Zoning charges require comparing the observed use, parking arrangement or physical condition to the applicable zoning district, lawful occupancy and any prior approvals or variances. Correction can mean stopping the use, restoring required parking, or pursuing a lawful approval if available.
Hearing issues to verify
- Is the cited zoning district/use classification correct for this lot?
- Was the alleged use actually occurring on the issue date?
- Is there a prior BSA/CPC/DOB approval, variance or grandfathered condition relevant to the charge?
Evidence that may matter
- Zoning map and ZOLA/property records
- Certificate of Occupancy / approved plans
- Survey or parking layout
- Prior approvals, variances, permits and dated photographs
Zoning / Parking / Use — Summons 35686387K
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTEDENT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENT. AS NOTED: THREE CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE BEAMS LOCATED AT TWO SEPARATE AREAS OF THE 32ND FLOOR AND A BEAM LOC
Cited provision(s): 165 — ZR 32-63 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY ADVERTISING SIGN NOT PERMITTED IN SPECIFIE
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Zoning charges require comparing the observed use, parking arrangement or physical condition to the applicable zoning district, lawful occupancy and any prior approvals or variances. Correction can mean stopping the use, restoring required parking, or pursuing a lawful approval if available.
Hearing issues to verify
- Is the cited zoning district/use classification correct for this lot?
- Was the alleged use actually occurring on the issue date?
- Is there a prior BSA/CPC/DOB approval, variance or grandfathered condition relevant to the charge?
Evidence that may matter
- Zoning map and ZOLA/property records
- Certificate of Occupancy / approved plans
- Survey or parking layout
- Prior approvals, variances, permits and dated photographs
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 35673630Z
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: BC 1704.1.1.2(2022 CODE). FAILURE TO REPORT CONDITIONS NOTED AS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE, SAFETY OR HEALTH THAT ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY CORRECTED TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSIONER. AS NOTED: ON JULY 11TH 2026
Cited provision(s): 106 — 27-/28-/BC-MISC MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The first step is to read the inspector's narrative together with every cited code section and determine exactly what act, condition or missing filing DOB alleges. The correction and hearing strategy should then be built around that specific charge rather than a generic violation-removal checklist.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the summons identify the correct property, respondent, date and observed condition?
- Do agency records support or contradict the inspector's description?
- Was the condition corrected, permitted or otherwise resolved before the hearing?
Evidence that may matter
- Official DOB/OATH property and summons records
- Dated photographs and videos
- Permits, approved plans and inspection results
- Contracts, receipts, professional letters or witness statements tied to the cited condition
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 35673631K
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: BC 1704.1.1.2(2022 CODE). FAILURE TO REPORT CONDITIONS NOTED AS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE, SAFETY OR HEALTH THAT ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY CORRECTED TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSIONER. AS NOTED: ON JULY 23RD 2026
Cited provision(s): 106 — 27-/28-/BC-MISC MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The first step is to read the inspector's narrative together with every cited code section and determine exactly what act, condition or missing filing DOB alleges. The correction and hearing strategy should then be built around that specific charge rather than a generic violation-removal checklist.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the summons identify the correct property, respondent, date and observed condition?
- Do agency records support or contradict the inspector's description?
- Was the condition corrected, permitted or otherwise resolved before the hearing?
Evidence that may matter
- Official DOB/OATH property and summons records
- Dated photographs and videos
- Permits, approved plans and inspection results
- Contracts, receipts, professional letters or witness statements tied to the cited condition
Failure to Maintain — Summons 35673632M
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN OR REPORT A BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE IS DANGEROUS OR UNSAFE IN WRITING TO THE DEPARTMENT. ON JULY 11TH DOB PERFORMED A SITE INSPECTION FINDING CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE BEAMS AT 32ND FLOOR A
Cited provision(s): 102 — 28-301.1 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BLDG IN CODE-COMPLIANT MANNER
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Failure-to-maintain charges are fact-specific. The owner should identify the exact building component or service equipment cited, repair the condition, and document the repair with evidence tied to the inspection location/date.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the description accurately identify the component, location and condition?
- Was the condition already repaired or not present when the summons was issued?
- Was another party responsible for maintenance under facts that are legally relevant to the respondent's liability?
Evidence that may matter
- Dated before/after photographs
- Repair invoices and contractor statements
- Professional inspection/report when structural or technical conditions are involved
- Maintenance logs and prior inspection records
Failure to Maintain — Summons 35673633Y
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN OR REPORT A BUILDING OR OTHER STRUCTURE IS DANGEROUS OR UNSAFE IN WRITING TO THE DEPARTMENT. ON JULY 23RD DOB PERFORMED A SITE INSPECTION FINDING CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE BEAMS AT 33RD FLOOR A
Cited provision(s): 102 — 28-301.1 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BLDG IN CODE-COMPLIANT MANNER
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Failure-to-maintain charges are fact-specific. The owner should identify the exact building component or service equipment cited, repair the condition, and document the repair with evidence tied to the inspection location/date.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the description accurately identify the component, location and condition?
- Was the condition already repaired or not present when the summons was issued?
- Was another party responsible for maintenance under facts that are legally relevant to the respondent's liability?
Evidence that may matter
- Dated before/after photographs
- Repair invoices and contractor statements
- Professional inspection/report when structural or technical conditions are involved
- Maintenance logs and prior inspection records
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 35686382L
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: GENERAL CONTRACTOR/PERMIT HOLDER FAILED TO PROMPTLY NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF AN INCIDENT AS REQUIRED. AS NOTED: ON JULY 11TH 2026 DOB PERFORMED A SITE INSPECTION AND OBSERVED THAT NO NOTIFICATION WAS SUBMITTED
Cited provision(s): 192 — BC 3301.8 FAILURE TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF AN ACCIDENT AT CONSTRU
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The first step is to read the inspector's narrative together with every cited code section and determine exactly what act, condition or missing filing DOB alleges. The correction and hearing strategy should then be built around that specific charge rather than a generic violation-removal checklist.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the summons identify the correct property, respondent, date and observed condition?
- Do agency records support or contradict the inspector's description?
- Was the condition corrected, permitted or otherwise resolved before the hearing?
Evidence that may matter
- Official DOB/OATH property and summons records
- Dated photographs and videos
- Permits, approved plans and inspection results
- Contracts, receipts, professional letters or witness statements tied to the cited condition
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 35686384P
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: SITE SAFETY MANAGER FAILURE TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANINCIDENT AS REQUIRED. AS NOTED: ON JULY 23RD 2026 DOB PERFORMED A SITEINSPECTION AND OBSERVED THAT NO NOTIFICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPA
Cited provision(s): 193 — BC 3310.8.2 SITE SAFETY MANAGER/COORDINATOR FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DEPAR
How this type of condition is typically resolved
These charges focus on protection of workers, occupants, neighboring property or the public during construction. Correction normally requires fixing the specific unsafe condition, documenting required safety measures and keeping the required site records current.
Hearing issues to verify
- What precise safety measure does the summons say was missing or inadequate?
- Was the condition temporary and corrected before or during the inspection?
- Did an approved site-safety plan or required site document address the cited condition?
Evidence that may matter
- Site Safety Plan / logistics drawings
- Daily safety logs and competent-person/site-safety records
- Photographs taken around the inspection time
- Contractor or safety-manager statements and correction records
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 35686389Y
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 23, 2026; hearing October 15, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATION. AS NOTED: THREE CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE BEAMS LOCATED AT TWOSEPERATE AREAS OF THE 32ND FLOOR AND A BEAM LOCATED AT 33RD FLOOR ELEV
Cited provision(s): 109 — BC 3301.2,27-1009(A) FAIL TO SAFEGUARD PERS/PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OP
How this type of condition is typically resolved
These charges focus on protection of workers, occupants, neighboring property or the public during construction. Correction normally requires fixing the specific unsafe condition, documenting required safety measures and keeping the required site records current.
Hearing issues to verify
- What precise safety measure does the summons say was missing or inadequate?
- Was the condition temporary and corrected before or during the inspection?
- Did an approved site-safety plan or required site document address the cited condition?
Evidence that may matter
- Site Safety Plan / logistics drawings
- Daily safety logs and competent-person/site-safety records
- Photographs taken around the inspection time
- Contractor or safety-manager statements and correction records
Sign / Awning / Advertising — Summons 35673634X
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 11, 2026; hearing October 29, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: BC 1705.25(2022 CODE). REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL FAILED TO PREPARE AND FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT DESIGN DOCUMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL STABILITY MEASURES AS REQUIRED. AS NOTED: ON JULY 11TH 2026, DOB PERFORMED A
Cited provision(s): 106 — 27-/28-/BC-MISC MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Sign-related charges usually require confirming zoning/permit requirements, dimensions, illumination and placement, followed by permit/legalization or removal/modification.
Hearing issues to verify
- Was the sign/awning exempt from a permit or already covered by an approved filing?
- Were the dimensions/location described by the inspector accurate?
- Was the sign removed or modified before the summons date or hearing?
Evidence that may matter
- Sign permit / zoning documents
- Measured photographs and drawings
- Removal or modification invoice
- Prior approvals and storefront plans
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 35673636J
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 11, 2026; hearing October 29, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AC 28-104.3(2022 CODE). ENGINEER OF RECORD FAILED TO SUBMIT AND OBTAINAPPROVAL OF AMENDED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK EFFECTING VERSIONS TO THE APPROVED STRUCTURAL DESIGN. AS NOTED: ON JULY
Cited provision(s): 106 — 27-/28-/BC-MISC MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The first step is to read the inspector's narrative together with every cited code section and determine exactly what act, condition or missing filing DOB alleges. The correction and hearing strategy should then be built around that specific charge rather than a generic violation-removal checklist.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the summons identify the correct property, respondent, date and observed condition?
- Do agency records support or contradict the inspector's description?
- Was the condition corrected, permitted or otherwise resolved before the hearing?
Evidence that may matter
- Official DOB/OATH property and summons records
- Dated photographs and videos
- Permits, approved plans and inspection results
- Contracts, receipts, professional letters or witness statements tied to the cited condition
Case-specific next step
For this property, the first paid review should reconcile the 14 October summons records against the current OATH/DOB record, identify which alleged conditions remain open, and separate the hearing defense from the DOB correction / certification work. That prevents paying for correction work that does not address the actual charge—or appearing at OATH without the documents needed for the cited condition.
Submit These Summonses for Review