What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 3 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold; Work Without a Permit; Failure to Maintain. The hearing dates are October 1, 2026, October 29, 2026; the source issue date(s) are August 21, 2026, July 22, 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.
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39197185K
CLASS - 2 · Issued July 22, 2026; hearing October 1, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATOI OBSERVED SIDEWALK SHED AT EXPOSURE #1 AT ABOVE PREMISES BOTH ELECTRIC M01184540-I1-EL EXPIRED 2-11-26 AND M01179995-I1-SH EXPIRED 7-9-26 .ISSED NOV FOR EXPIRED PERMIT, SAFEGUARD PUBLIC AND PROPERTY
Cited provision(s): 209 — BC 3301.2,27-1009(A) FAIL TO SAFEGUARD PERS/PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OP
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The issue is typically whether the shed/scaffold was permitted, properly installed and maintained, and whether the equipment matched the approved filing and current safety requirements. Correction can involve permit renewal, physical modification, inspection, or removal.
Hearing issues to verify
- Was the equipment covered by an active permit on the inspection date?
- Did the installed dimensions/protection match the approved design?
- Was a cited defect already corrected before the summons was issued or served?
Evidence that may matter
- DOB NOW equipment permit and approved drawings
- Engineer/contractor inspection logs
- Dated site photographs
- Renewal or removal records
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39201320N
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 21, 2026; hearing October 29, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATOI OBSERVED PERMITS FOR SIDEWALK SHED NOT POSTED ,ISSUED NOV B220 FOR FAILURE TO POST PERMITS, ELECTRIC/SIDEWALK SHED, POST/PROPERLY POST PERMIT
Cited provision(s): 220 — §28-105.11 FAILURE TO POST PERMIT FOR WORK AT PREMISES
How this type of condition is typically resolved
The correction path usually starts by determining whether the observed work required a permit and whether the condition can legally remain. If it can remain, legalization may require plans, a filing, permit, inspections and closeout; if it cannot or the owner does not want to legalize it, restoration to a lawful condition may be required.
Hearing issues to verify
- Did a valid permit already cover the exact work described by the inspector on the issue date?
- Was the cited activity actually permit-required work, or was it maintenance / exempt work under the applicable facts?
- Do the approved drawings, permit scope and inspection history match the condition the inspector described?
- If a Stop Work Order was issued, was the work stopped and was any later work performed only after the required authorization?
Evidence that may matter
- Permit and DOB NOW/BIS job records that predate the inspection
- Approved plans and amendments showing the cited work
- Dated photographs of the condition and construction stage
- Contracts, invoices and contractor statements establishing what work was actually performed
- Inspection / sign-off records if the work was subsequently legalized
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39201312N
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 21, 2026; hearing October 29, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATOI UNABLE TO GAIN ACCESS HOWEVER OBSERVED WINDOW AIRCONDITIONERS INSTALLED IN BASKETS OF FIRE ESCAPE AT EXPOSURE #1AT ABOVE PREMISES AND NO SUPPORT BRACKETS THUS CREATING A SAFETY HAZARD. ISSUED NOV FOR FAILU
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
Case-specific next step
For this property, the first paid review should reconcile the 3 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