What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 11 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: 6 Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold summonses; 2 Work Without a Permit summonses; 2 Site Safety / Safeguarding summonses; Other Building / Code Compliance. The hearing date is October 5, 2026; the source issue date(s) are May 8, 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 39553907L
CLASS - 2 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: UPON INSPECTION OF A ACTIVE 4 STORY NB I OBSERVED A FENCE INSTALLED AT EXPOS 1&4 NOT CONSTRUCTED OR MAINTAINED ACCORDING TO CODE. PROTRUDING NAILS, SCREWS, AND DAMAGED WOOD AT EXPOS 1&4. DAMAGED WOOD PANELS. FE
Cited provision(s): 211 — BC 3307.7,27-1021(C) JOB SITE FENCE NOT CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION
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
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39553908N
CLASS - 2 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: I OBSERVED A SIDEWALK SHED INSTALLED AT EXPOS 1&4 WITH NOT SIDEWALK SHED PARAPET INFO PANELS INSTALLED AT EXPOS 1&4 CONTRARY TO CODE 3301.9.2 SIDEWALK SHED PARAPET INFORMATION PANEL. I ALSO OBSERVED A FENCE INS
Cited provision(s): 217 — BC 3301.9,27-10009(C) FAIL TO PROVIDE/POST SIGN(S) AT JB SITE PURSUANT TO SUBSEC
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
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39553910M
CLASS - 2 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: UPON INSPECTION OF AN ACTIVE 4 STORY NB I OBSERVED ROOF PROTECTION INSTALLED ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY ROOF CONTRARY TO APPROVED DRAWINGS. NO NETTING INSTALLED ON PIPE SCAFFOLD PROTECTION AS PER ROOF PROTECTION
Cited provision(s): 282 — 28-105.12.2 WRK DOESN'T CONFORM TO APPROV DOCS AND/OR APPROV AMENDMENTS
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
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39553911Y
CLASS - 1 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: UPON INSPECTION OF AN ACTIVE 4 STORY NB I OBSERVED MULTIPLE LOCATIONS ON THE 1ST FLOOR MEZZANINE AND 2ND FLOOR WITH NO TOE BOARDS PROVIDED CONTRARY TO CODE. NO TOE BOARDS IS A OVERHEAD HAZARD WITH NOTHING TO PR
Cited provision(s): 118 — BC 3301.2,27-1009(A) FAILURE TO INSTITUTE/MAINTAIN SAFETY EQUIPMENT MEASURES OT 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
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39553914J
CLASS - 2 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: UPON INSPECTION I OBSERVED A SIDEWALK SHED INSTALLED AT EXPOS 1&4 NOT MAINTAINED CONTRARY TO CODES 3307.6.5.1 SAFE CONDITION & 3307.6.5.3 RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND USE. I OBSERVED MULTIPLE UNPROTECTED
Cited provision(s): 223 — BC 3307.6,27-1021 SIDEWALK SHED DOES NOT MEET CODE SPECIFICATIONS
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
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39553915L
CLASS - 2 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: UPON INSPECTION OF AN ACTIVE 4 STORY NB I OBSERVED A FENCE AND SIDEWALK SHED INSTALLED AT EXPOS 4 WITH A PROVIDED PATHWAY BETWEEN THE SHED AND FENCE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 5FT MINIMUM CONTRARY TO CODE 3307.2.6
Cited provision(s): 2P7
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
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39553916N
CLASS - 2 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: UPON INSPECTION I OBSERVED A SIDEWALK SHED INSTALLED AT EXPOS 1&4. UPON REQUEST TO SEE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS TO BE KEPT ON SITE NONE WAS PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF MY INSPECTION (SIDEWALK SHED DAILY INSPECTION L
Cited provision(s): 2F7 — 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
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 39553917P
CLASS - 2 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: UPON INSPECTION OF AN ACTIVE 4 STORY NB CONSTRUCTION SITE I OBSERVED A TEMP PLATFORM WITH STAIRS INSTALLED ON TOP ON THE 3RD FLOOR. UPON REQUEST TO SEE DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR THE PLATFORM NONE WAS PROVIDED AT THE
Cited provision(s): 2F7 — 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
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39553920X
CLASS - 2 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: I OBSERVED A SIDEWALK SHED INSTALLED AT EXPOS 1&4 CONTRARY TO CODE. MULTIPLE BEAMS PLACED WITHIN 18 INCHES FROM THE FACE OF THE CURB LINE CONTRARY TO CODE 3307.6.4.4, INADEQUATE METAL COVERAGE UNDER DECK AT EXP
Cited provision(s): 223 — BC 3307.6,27-1021 SIDEWALK SHED DOES NOT MEET CODE SPECIFICATIONS
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
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39553921H
CLASS - 2 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: UPON INSPECTION I OBSERVED A SIDEWALK SHED INSTALLED AT EXPOS 1&4 CONTRARY TO THE APPROVED DRAWINGS. IN CORRECT CROSS BRACE SEQUENCE. VERTICAL MEMBERS INSTALLED WITHIN 18 INCHES FROM THE CURB LINE. 14FT ELEVATI
Cited provision(s): 282 — 28-105.12.2 WRK DOESN'T CONFORM TO APPROV DOCS AND/OR APPROV AMENDMENTS
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 39553922J
CLASS - 2 · Issued May 8, 2026; hearing October 5, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: UPON INSPECTION OF A 4 STORY NB I OBSERVED A TOTAL OF 9 UNSAFE AND HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS THAT CAN RESULT IN PEDESTRIAN AND WORKER INJURIES AS WELL AS POSSIBLE PROPERTY DAMAGE THAT HAVE GONE UNADDRESSED. ONLY 1 H
Cited provision(s): 2G5 — BC 3301.13.7 THROUGH BC 3301.13.13 CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENT FAILED TO PERFORM DUTIES PER CODE.
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 11 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