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: Work Without a Permit; Egress / Exit Obstruction; Other Building / Code Compliance. The hearing date is October 2, 2026; the source issue date(s) are July 27, 2026, July 28, 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.
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39557098Z
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 27, 2026; hearing October 2, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT TIME OF INSPECTION OF PROPOSED 3 STORY MIXED USE NB I OBSERVED SITE IN SOE & FOUNDATION PHASE. AT EXP 2 SOIL WAS NOT CUT BACK ON 45 DEGREE ANGLE AS PER PLANS. WORK DOES NOT CONFORM TO APPROVED CONSTRUCTION D
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
Egress / Exit Obstruction — Summons 39557099K
CLASS - 2 · Issued July 27, 2026; hearing October 2, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: EGRESS LADDER IN EXCAVATION NOT AS PER CODE, LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND NOT 3 FEET ABOVE LANDING SURFACE. EVERY EXCAVATION SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AT LEAST ONE SAFE MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS THAT IS KEPT AVAILA
Cited provision(s): 2P7
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 39557165J
CLASS - 2 · Issued July 28, 2026; hearing October 2, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OF THE ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR THE PROPOSED 3-STORY BUILDING, A WORKER PERFORMING FRAMING OPERATION FOR CONCRETE, A WORKER WAS OBSERVED STANDING ON A CLOSED A-FRAME LADDER LEANED
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
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