What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 4 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: 3 Failure to Maintain summonses; Work Without a Permit. The hearing date is October 19, 2026; the source issue date(s) are February 2, 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 39175650J
CLASS - 3 · Issued February 2, 2026; hearing October 19, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT. WORK NOTED. AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION I OBSERVED MULTIPLE WINDOWS IN THE CELLAR LEVEL SEALED AT THE FRONT AND REAR OF THE BUILDING WITH CMU AND MASONRY BRICKS. THE WORK IS COMPLETED 100%,
Cited provision(s): 301 — 28-105.1 WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT
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
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39175651L
CLASS - 3 · Issued February 2, 2026; hearing October 19, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING IN A CODE-COMPLIANT MANNER. AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OF THE CELLAR LEVEL, I OBSERVED WATER LEAKS AT THE REAR LEFT SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND ON THE RIGHT-SIDE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING
Cited provision(s): 302 — 28-301.1 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BLDG IN CODE-COMPLIANT MANNER
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
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39175652N
CLASS - 2 · Issued February 2, 2026; hearing October 19, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING IN A CODE-COMPLIANT MANNER. AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OF THE CELLAR LEVEL, I OBSERVED MULTIPLE DAMAGED/ROTTEN WOOD JOISTS FOR THE 1ST FLOOR LEVEL. THE CONDITION POSES A POTENTIAL FL
Cited provision(s): 202 — 28-301.1 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BLDG IN CODE-COMPLIANT MANNER
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
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39175653P
CLASS - 2 · Issued February 2, 2026; hearing October 19, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING IN A CODE-COMPLAINT MANNER: NO FIRE STOPPING AS PER BC 712.3 (2014 CODE); 27 -345. BC 711.2.4 (2022CODE). ATOI, OF THE CELLAR LEVEL, I OBSERVED MISSING/DETACHED DRYWALL IN IN THE CE
Cited provision(s): 239 — 28-301.1 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING IN CODE-COMPLIANT MANNER: NO FIRE STOPPIN
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
Case-specific next step
For this property, the first paid review should reconcile the 4 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