What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 6 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: 2 Other Building / Code Compliance summonses; Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold; Façade / Exterior Wall; Failure to Maintain; Elevator / Vertical Transportation. The hearing date is October 7, 2026; the source issue date(s) are May 11, 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.
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39188205Y
CLASS - 1 · Issued May 11, 2026; hearing October 7, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATOI, OBSERVED SIDEWALK SHED INSTALLED AT 536 MONROE STREET, UPON REVIEW OF APPROVED SHED DRAWINGS #B01185581, WORK DOES NOT CONFORM WITH APPROVED PLANS. SW SHED NOT INSTALLED AT EXPO 1 FRONT SIDEWALK AND REAR
Cited provision(s): 1E7 — BC3307.3 FAILURE TO PROVIDE PEDESTRAIN PROTECTION FOR SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS
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
Façade / Exterior Wall — Summons 39188206X
CLASS - 1 · Issued May 11, 2026; hearing October 7, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATOI OBSERVED BUILDING PARTIALLY DEMOED, ROOF AND THIRD FLOOR EXTERIOR WALLS REMOVED, NO FALL PROTECTION PROVIDED, 5 WORKERS ON THE FLOOR AND NO GUARDRAILS INSTALLED AROUND THE PERIMETER FOR EXPOSURES 1,3,AND 4
Cited provision(s): 115 — BC 3301.2,27-1009(A) FAILURE TO INSTITUTE/MAINTAIN SAFETY EQUIPMENT MEASURES OR TEMPORARY
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
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39188207H
CLASS - 1 · Issued May 11, 2026; hearing October 7, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATOI, OBSERVED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN HOUSEKEEPING DURING CONSTRUCTION. EXCESSIVE DEBRIS AT SEVERAL LOCATIONS AT 2ND FLOOR AND EXPOSURE 3 LOCATION OVERLOADED WITH DEMOED BRICKS, MAINTAIN ADEQUATE CONSTRUCTION HOUS
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
Elevator / Vertical Transportation — Summons 39188208J
CLASS - 1 · Issued May 11, 2026; hearing October 7, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATOI, OBSERVED BUILDING PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED 3RD FLOOR & ROOF REMOVED. UPON REVIEW OF FLOOR PLANS. ALL FLOORS MISSING PROPER SHORING TO SUPPORT OVERLOADED FLOOR WITH 5 WORKERS AND MATERIALS/DEBRIS, PLAN INDICAT
Cited provision(s): 1P7
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
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 39188294P
CLASS - 1 · Issued May 11, 2026; hearing October 7, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATOI OBSERVED BUILDING BEING PARTIALLY DEMOLISH , ROOF AND 3RD FL REMOVED , AT PARTY WALL EXPOSURE 2, OBSERVED WORKERS APPLY STUCCO CEMENT ON WALL WEHERE WATERPROOFING MATERIALS REQUIERED BY CODE , PROVIDE APPR
Cited provision(s): 1P7
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
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 39188295R
CLASS - 1 · Issued May 11, 2026; hearing October 7, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: ATOI OBSERVED BREACHED EXPOSED PARTY WALL AND WALL ANCHORS NOT BEND OVER AS REQUIRED BY CODE; 3309.8, COMPLY WITH CODE; APPLY WALL FINISHES AND ANCHORAGE AS REQUIRED BY CODE COMPLY WITH BC3309.8
Cited provision(s): 1P7
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 6 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