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 Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold summonses; Elevator / Vertical Transportation; Egress / Exit Obstruction; Façade / Exterior Wall. The hearing dates are October 16, 2026, October 2, 2026, October 23, 2026; the source issue date(s) are July 24, 2026, July 29, 2026, October 2, 2025.
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 35729923M
CLASS - 2 · Issued July 29, 2026; hearing October 2, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: EXPIRED SIDEWALK SHED PERMIT. NOTED AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION I OBSERVED THAT PERMIT FOR SIDEWALK SHED HAD EXPIRED. I CHECKED ON THE SITE AND FOUND THAT NO PERMIT WAS DISPLAYED AT PREMISES. I THEN CHECH THE BIS
Cited provision(s): 2P8
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
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 35729924Y
CLASS - 2 · Issued July 29, 2026; hearing October 2, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION DOES NOT MEET CODE SPECIFICATIONS. NOTED AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION I OBSERVED DEFECTIVE/INADEQUATE SHED CONDITIONS I. E. DAMAGED/ROTTED MUDSILLS ON MULTIPLE LOCATIONS WHICH IS NOT IN COMPL
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
Elevator / Vertical Transportation — Summons 39198669L
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 24, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: RTS CLASS 1: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING IN CODE COMPLIANT MANNER. SERVICE ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT AS BC3001.2 & 27-987. UPON AN INSPECTION THE ELEVATOR IS FOUND OUT OF SERVICE, CREATING AN HAZARDOUS CONDITION FOR
Cited provision(s): 151 — 28-301.1 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING IN CODE COMPLIANT MANNER: SERVICE EQUIPME
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Elevator charges often require licensed-elevator maintenance or repair, the required periodic inspection/test filing, an affirmation of correction where applicable, and reinspection for hazardous conditions.
Hearing issues to verify
- Does the device number/location on the summons match the building's elevator record?
- Was the cited defect repaired or the device removed from service before the inspection?
- Were the required CAT/periodic inspection filings timely and accepted?
Evidence that may matter
- Elevator device record and inspection/test reports
- Maintenance contractor logs and repair tickets
- Affirmation of Correction / reinspection result
- Photographs or controller/service records
Egress / Exit Obstruction — Summons 35717709N
CLASS - 1 · Issued October 2, 2025; hearing October 23, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO PROVIDE UNOBSTRUCTED EXIT PASSAGEWAY.NOTED:AT EXP 2(S.ELEV)FIRE ESCAPE LADDER IS BLOCKED BY STORE FRONT SIGN LEADING TO WEST KINGSBRIDGE ROAD.REM:REMOVE OBSTRUCTION.
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
Façade / Exterior Wall — Summons 35717710K
CLASS - 1 · Issued October 2, 2025; hearing October 23, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN EXTERIOR BUILDING FACADE AND APPURTENANCES.NOTED:OBSERVED AT EXP 1(E.ELEV)DETERIORATED DECORATIVE STONE DETERIORATED BALCONY SLABS,AND CRACKED MASONRY AT MULTIPLE AT EXP.2(S.ELEV)BROKEN WIND
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
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