What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 8 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: 3 Other Building / Code Compliance summonses; Failure to Maintain; Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold; Egress / Exit Obstruction; Site Safety / Safeguarding; Work Without a Permit. The hearing dates are October 16, 2026, October 2, 2026; the source issue date(s) are August 1, 2026, August 11, 2026, July 22, 2026, July 28, 2026, 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 39557196M
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 28, 2026; hearing October 2, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OF A 7-STORY BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION, INADEQUATE HOUSEKEEPING WAS OBSERVED THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR FROM THE 1ST TO 7TH FLOORS. DEBRIS AND SCATTERED MATERIALS CREATED SLIP, TRIP, AN
Cited provision(s): 181 — BC 3303.4 & 27-1018 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE HOUSEKEEPING PER SECTION REQUIREMENTS
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
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39557223Z
CLASS - 2 · Issued July 28, 2026; hearing October 2, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATIO, NO MIRRORS WERE PROVIDED OR INSTALLED AT THE CORNERS/INTERSECTIONS OF THE SIDEWALK SHED PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY, CREATING BLIND SPOTS THAT OBSTRUCT VISIBILITY FOR APPROACHING PEDESTRIANS AND WORKERS. FAILURE T
Cited provision(s): 223 — BC 3307.6,27-1021 SIDEWALK SHED DOES NOT MEET CODE SPECIFICATIONS
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
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 39556912J
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 22, 2026; hearing October 2, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OF THE ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITE 7-STORY NEW BUILDING TOPPED OFF, A WORKER PERFORMING WINDOW FOAMING OPERATION WAS OBSERVED STANDING ON A CLOSED A-FRAME LADDER LEANED ON GLASS WINDOW, I
Cited provision(s): 1F1 — BC 3301.1.3 (2014 CODE) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS
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
Egress / Exit Obstruction — Summons 39557336P
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 30, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: 7 STORY NB ACTIVE SITE. OBSERVED FROM 1 TO 3 FL SHEETROCK FLAT ON STAIRS TREADS/LANDINGS IN STAIRCASE WITH TRASH PARTIALLY BLOCKING EGRESS/INGRESS. ON 2,3 FLOORS SHEETROCK/TRASH/MATERIALS DEBRIS MULTIPLE EXTENS
Cited provision(s): 127 — 27-369,BC 1020.2 FAIL TO PROVIDE UNOBSTRUCTED EXIT PASSAGEWAY
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Egress charges are generally corrected by removing the obstruction or restoring the required exit width/path and then documenting that the means of egress is clear and code compliant.
Hearing issues to verify
- Was the cited passageway actually required egress for the affected occupancy?
- Did the alleged obstruction exist when the inspector observed it?
- Was the condition immediately removed and can the timing be documented?
Evidence that may matter
- Dated photographs showing the exit path
- Approved floor/egress plans
- Building or security logs
- Statements or work records documenting removal of stored items/obstructions
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 39557389Z
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 1, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT TIME OF INSPECTION, OBSERVED 7-STORY BUILDING. STORAGE ZONE AT EXPOSURE 1 WAS NOT MAINTAINED. REQUIRED 4-FOOT BARRIERS WERE NOT PROVIDED AROUND STORED MATERIALS. PALLETS OF TILE, USED BRICKS, AND CONSTRUCTIO
Cited provision(s): 2P7
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 39557765N
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 11, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: 7 STORY NB, ACTIVE WORK SITE. OBSERVED SITE SAFETY COORDINATOR ON SITE WITH ADEQUATE LOGS REFLECTING SITE CONDITIONS. UPON CHECKING DEPARTMENT RECORDS RESPONDENT IS ACTIVELY SIGNING IN ON THIS SITE PERMIT#X0118
Cited provision(s): 2P7
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
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39557335N
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 30, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: 7 STORY NB ACTIVE SITE.CONTRARY TO DOCS ONSITE/SSP,OBSERVED EXTERIOR WORK ON SUPPORTED SCAFFOLD AT EXP#1,3,4.WORKER'S RASPING EFIS FROM FACADE INSIDE SCAFFOLD NETTING.WHITE PARTICLES/DEBRIS FLYING UP TO IN EXCE
Cited provision(s): 182 — 28-105.12.2 WORK DOES NOT CONFORM TO APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND/OR APPROV
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
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 39557390X
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 1, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT TIME OF INSPECTION, OBSERVED 7-STORY BUILDING. UNSECURED YODOCKS WERE OBSERVED AT EXPOSURE 1 AND WERE NOT MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. CONDITION MAY AFFECT STABILITY OF THE PEDE
Cited provision(s): 1F1 — BC 3301.1.3 (2014 CODE) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS
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 8 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