What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 7 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: 3 Site Safety / Safeguarding summonses; 2 Other Building / Code Compliance summonses; Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold; Work Without a Permit. The hearing dates are October 16, 2026, October 30, 2026; the source issue date(s) are August 16, 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.
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 39557664Y
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 7, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: DURING INSPECTION OF A PROPOSED 12-STORY NB, I OBSERVED A WORKER WAS USING A BATTERY-POWERED GRINDER TO CUT METAL FRAMING, CONTRARY TO THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.THE GRINDER WAS MISSING THE REQUIRED SIDE
Cited provision(s): 2F6 — 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
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39557665X
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 7, 2026; hearing October 16, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OF A 12-STORY NB, ACTIVE SITE WITH STUCCO OPERATION USING SUPPORTED PIPE SCAFFOLDING, I ALSO OBSERVED STUCCO RESIDUE AND DEBRIS IN ADJACENT PROPERTIES, IN AIR AND SIDEWALK, FAILURE TO
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
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39558001H
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 16, 2026; hearing October 30, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: BC 3310.4. DURING MY INSPECTION OF AN ACTIVE 12-STORY NB, WITH ONGOING METAL FRAMING AT THE PERIMETER AND INTERIOR LAYOUTS. I OBSERVED NO SITE SAFETY MONITORING PROGRAM IN PLACE AND NO DESIGNATED SITE SAFETY MA
Cited provision(s): 1P7
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
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39558004N
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 16, 2026; hearing October 30, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: 3301.2. DURING MY INSPECTION. I OBSERVED AN ACTIVE 12-STORY NB WITH INADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES IN PLACE, PERIMETER VERTICAL NETTING NOT TIED DOWN TO ZERO CABLE, MISSING HANDRAILS, AND FALL ARREST AT THE STAIRS
Cited provision(s): 1P7
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
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39558002J
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 16, 2026; hearing October 30, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: DURING MY INSPECTION OF AN ACTIVE 12-STORY NB. I REQUESTED DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR THE PLATFORM AT THE ROOF LEVEL; NONE WERE PROVIDED. NO DD AND NO APPROVED SITE SAFETY PLAN. STOP ALL WORK UNDER PERMIT #X01129500.
Cited provision(s): 1F2 — BC 3301.7 (2014 CODE) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN/DISPLAY ON SITE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED BY BC CHAPTER 3
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 39557986R
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 16, 2026; hearing October 30, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT THE TIME OF MY INSPECTION OF A 12-STORY NB. I OBSERVED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, WITH ONGOING PERIMETER AND INTERIOR METAL FRAMING. I REVIEWED THE DOB NOW AND BIS WEBSITES AND FOUND NO ISSUED AHV PERMIT FOR T
Cited provision(s): 1C6 — 28-105.1 WORK AFTER HOURS W/O VARIANCE PERMIT CONTRARY TO 28-105.12.5
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 39558003L
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 16, 2026; hearing October 30, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: DURING MY INSPECTION, I OBSERVED INADEQUATE HOUSEKEEPING. EXPOSURE 3: REAR YARD, LARGE PILE OF STORED COMBUSTIBLE AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS NOT REMOVED FROM THE SITE AT THE END OF OPERATION AS REQUIRED. THIS CONS
Cited provision(s): 212 — BC 3303.4,27-1018 FAIL TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE HSEKEEPING PER SECTIONS REQUIREMENTS
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 7 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