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: 4 Failure to Maintain summonses; Work Without a Permit; Site Safety / Safeguarding. The hearing date is October 14, 2026; the source issue date(s) are August 4, 2026, July 30, 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 39198346R
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 30, 2026; hearing October 14, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: WORK WITHOUT PERMIT: PSWO ISSUED FOR ALL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CARPENTRY, STRUCTURAL ECT WORK BEING DONE ON THE RESIDENT. ATOI OBSERVED AT EXPO # 3 A NEWLY BUILT UNPERMITTED UNDOCUMENTED WOOD FRAMED ONE STORY HO
Cited provision(s): 101 — 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 39199024Z
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 4, 2026; hearing October 14, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: VIOLATION ISSUED FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SAFETY MEASURES NO GUARDRAIL SYSTEM . ATOI OBSERVED ON THE SECOND FLOOR ON AN ACTIVE SITE IN THE INTERIOR NO GUARDRAIL SYSTEM AROUND AN OPENING ON THE SECOND FLOOR WHICH
Cited provision(s): 102 — 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
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39198347Z
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 30, 2026; hearing October 14, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: C VIOLATION ISSUED FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SAFETY MEASURES NO GUARDRAIL . ATOI OBSERVED AN OPENING IN THE FLOOR LEADING FROM THE FIRST TO THE BASEMENT. THERE WAS NO GUARDRAIL SYSTEM AT THE FIRST FLOOR LEVEL TO
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
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
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39199022P
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 4, 2026; hearing October 14, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: NOTED: ECB VIOLATION ISSUED FOR FTM ADEQUATE HOUSE KEEPING DUE TO EXCESSIVE DEBRIS. ATOI OBSERVED AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS PILED UP ON THE SECOND FLOOR . CONSISTING OF A PILES OF CUT UP WOOD B
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
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39198348K
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 30, 2026; hearing October 14, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: NOTED: ECB VIOLATION ISSUED FOR FTM ADEQUATE HOUSE KEEPING DUE TO EXCESSIVE DEBRIS. ATOI OBSERVED AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS PILED UP IN THE BASEMENT AND ON FIRST FLOOR . CONSISTING OF A PILES O
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
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39199023R
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 4, 2026; hearing October 14, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: VIOLATION ISSUED FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SAFETY MEASURES NO HANDRAIL SYSTEM . ATOI OBSERVED ON AN ACTIVE SITE IN THE INTERIOR NO GUARDRAIL SYSTEM ON THE STAIRCASE LEADING FROM THE FIRST FLOOR TO THE SECOND FLOO
Cited provision(s): 102 — 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
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