What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 5 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: 2 Façade / Exterior Wall summonses; Failure to Maintain; Work Without a Permit; Vacate Order. The hearing date is October 16, 2026; the source issue date(s) are August 11, 2026, August 7, 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.
Façade / Exterior Wall — Summons 39199809Z
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 7, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING WALLS & APPURTENANCES. AT TIME OF INSPECTION OBSERVED A SECTION OF MASONRY BRICK WORK APPROXIMATELY 5'X3' OVER 3RD FL. WINDOW HAS DETACHED & FALLEN ONTO PUBLIC SIDEWALK. ALSO SEVERE
Cited provision(s): 104 — 28-302.1 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BLDG WALL(S) OR APPURTENANCES
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Exterior-wall charges usually require a competent inspection of the cited façade/appurtenance, repair of unsafe or deteriorated conditions, and—when the building is subject to FISP—the appropriate QEWI report or amended filing.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the inspector's description match the actual exposure, floor and defect?
- Was the condition already repaired or protected before the summons date?
- Was there a current FISP/QEWI filing addressing the same condition?
Evidence that may matter
- QEWI report, FISP filing or amended report
- Close-up and elevation photographs identifying the exact defect
- Repair proposals, invoices and completion records
- Engineer/architect letter and inspection documentation
Façade / Exterior Wall — Summons 39200125N
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 11, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING WALL(S) OR APPURTENANCES. NOTED: AT EXPOSURE 3 FIRE ESCAPE - 1ST METAL TREAD FROM TOP AT 3RD FLR LEVEL WAS OBSERVED LOOSE & HANGING: CREATING A FALL HAZARD CONDITION., MAINTAIN EXTE
Cited provision(s): 104 — 28-302.1 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BLDG WALL(S) OR APPURTENANCES
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Exterior-wall charges usually require a competent inspection of the cited façade/appurtenance, repair of unsafe or deteriorated conditions, and—when the building is subject to FISP—the appropriate QEWI report or amended filing.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the inspector's description match the actual exposure, floor and defect?
- Was the condition already repaired or protected before the summons date?
- Was there a current FISP/QEWI filing addressing the same condition?
Evidence that may matter
- QEWI report, FISP filing or amended report
- Close-up and elevation photographs identifying the exact defect
- Repair proposals, invoices and completion records
- Engineer/architect letter and inspection documentation
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39199810X
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 7, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING IN CODE COMPLIANT MANNER. AT TIME OF INSPECTION OBSERVED EXPOSURE#3 FIRE ESCAPE DROP LADDER RENDERED INOPERABLE WHERE SEVERE CORROSION ON RAILS PREVENTING DROP LADDER FROM RELEASING
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
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39200126P
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 11, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: W/O A PERMIT. NOTED: CMU BLOCK STRUCTURE ERECTED AT EXPOSURE 3: APPRX. 25' X 21' X 12' OBSERVED WITH 3 ROLL DOWN GATES., OBTAIN ALL PERMITS
Cited provision(s): 201 — 28-105.1 WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT
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
Vacate Order — Summons 39200124L
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 11, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO OBEY A VACATE ORDER FROM THE COMMISSIONER PER 28-207.4. NOTED: AT TIME OF INSPECTION - 3RD FLR APT 3R WAS OBSERVED OCCUPIED CONTRARY TO VACATE ORDER X254/2026 ISSUED 8/7/2026 FOR APTS 2R & 3R., COMPL
Cited provision(s): 1F9 — 28-207.4 FAILURE TO OBEY A VACATE ORDER
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Vacate-order matters require confirming the exact areas and occupants covered by the order, correcting the conditions that caused the order, completing any required permits/inspections, and obtaining formal agency authorization before reoccupancy.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the summons identify the correct premises/area and the same vacate order reflected in agency records?
- Was the area occupied on the cited date, and by whom?
- Had the agency already rescinded or modified the vacate order before the alleged occupancy?
Evidence that may matter
- Vacate Order and rescission/modification documents
- DOB/HPD records showing status and affected areas
- Photographs, access logs, leases or occupancy records
- Professional reports / inspection results documenting correction
Case-specific next step
For this property, the first paid review should reconcile the 5 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