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: Failure to Maintain; Electrical Work / Electrical Permit; Other Building / Code Compliance. The hearing date is October 16, 2026; the source issue date(s) are July 30, 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.
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39198366Y
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 30, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATOI OBSERVED ON 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR OBSTRUCTED SPRINKLER HEADS CONTRARY TO FGC 903.3.3 OBSTRUCTED LOCATIONS IN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. IT MANDATES THAT SPRINKLERS BE POSITIONED TO AVOID OBSTRUCTIONS TH
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
Electrical Work / Electrical Permit — Summons 39198369J
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 30, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ELECTRICAL CLOSET NOT DEDICATED TO ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT ONLY. OBSERVED IN THE BASEMENT THE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT / PANELS ARE SHARING THE SAME ROOM AS HOT WATER TANKS AND BOILER. ELECTRICAL DISTRIBU
Cited provision(s): 1D3 — EC 110.25 ELECTRIACAL CLOSET NOT DEDICATEDE TO ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION EQUIP ONL
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Electrical charges generally require determining whether the cited installation was permitted and performed under the required licensed-electrical process, then correcting unsafe or unapproved work and obtaining any required inspection/acceptance.
Hearing issues to verify
- Was there an active electrical application/permit covering the cited wiring or equipment?
- Was the condition already corrected or disconnected before the inspection date?
- Does the cited equipment/location match the permitted scope and electrical inspection record?
Evidence that may matter
- Electrical permit/application and inspection records
- Licensed electrician invoice, letter or work order
- Photographs of wiring/equipment before and after correction
- Testing, certification or utility documentation where relevant
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 39198370R
CLASS - 2 · Issued July 30, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO PROVIDE ARC-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER (AFCI) PROTECTION IN DWELLING UNITS. OBSERVED THRU OUT THE BUILDING ON ALL FLOORS THE SLEEPING QUARTERS ARE NOT RECEPTACLES AND LIGHTING ARE NOT ARC FAULT PROTEC
Cited provision(s): 2D4 — EC 210.12(B) FAIL TO PROVIDE ARC-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER PROTECTION IN DWELLINGS
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 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