What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 12 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: 3 Other Building / Code Compliance summonses; 2 Site Safety / Safeguarding summonses; 2 Work Without a Permit summonses; 2 Stop Work Order summonses; Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold; Failure to Maintain; Construction Fence. The hearing dates are October 13, 2026, October 27, 2026; the source issue date(s) are August 19, 2026, August 5, 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.
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 39557554N
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 5, 2026; hearing October 13, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: BC3301.13.5 ALTERNATE CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENT.@ACTIVE SITE OBSERVE UNSAFE CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT(HOUSEKEEP,FALL PROTECTION/GUARDRAIL,&ETC)&UPON REVIEW THE PRE-SHIFT SAFETY MEETING&SUPERINTENDENT LOGS I DISCO
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
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39557557Z
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 5, 2026; hearing October 13, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: /VERTICAL SAFETY NETTING/FALL PROTECTION.@7STORY NB SITE OBSERVE ACTIVE EXTERIOR WORK OPERATIONS@LEADING EDGE&WORK WITHIN UNENCLOSED PERIMETER THROUGHOUT LEVELS ABOVE 1ST FL W/ HAZARDS OF FALL-WORKER WITHOUT FA
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
Sidewalk Shed / Scaffold — Summons 39557555P
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 5, 2026; hearing October 13, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: SIDEWALK SHED. @7STORY NB SITE OBSERVE SIDEWALK SHED IN PLACE COVERING EXP#1-2 AND I VERIFIED PER DOB RECORDS(DOB NOW)THE SIDEWALK SHED PERMIT JOB# Q01098336 HAD EXPIRED SINCE 6/7/26 WHERE NB GC FAILED TO ENSUR
Cited provision(s): 2P8
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
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39557558K
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 5, 2026; hearing October 13, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: @7STORY NB SITE OBSERVE SITES HOUSEKEEPING NOT MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT AFFECTING HEALTH&LIFE SAFETY OF ALL-DEBRIS CONTAINER ON ROAD FILLED OVER BRIM W/ NO COVER(DISLODGEMENT HAZARD),DEBRIS/MATERIAL ON SIDEWALK(TR
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
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39557556R
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 5, 2026; hearing October 13, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: 28-105.12.8 SITE SAFETY PLAN@ACTIVE 7STORY NB SITE OBSERVE UNSAFE CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT&SITE FAILED TO ADHERE TO PROVIDED SAFETY PLAN TO ENSURE SAFETY-SUPPORTED SCAFFOLD NOT IN PLACE FOR ACTIVE EXTERIOR/FACADE
Cited provision(s): 106 — 27-/28-/BC-MISC MISCELLANEOUS VIOLATIONS
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 39558128P
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 19, 2026; hearing October 27, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: 3303.4.7 STORAGE NEAR SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND PATHWAYS: INSPECTION OF AN ACTIVE SITE THERE WAS SEVERAL LARGE STACKED MATERIAL FROM 5'-12' HIGH STORED IN THE STREET IN THE STORAGE WORK ZONE AREA MATERIAL STORED
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
Stop Work Order — Summons 39558132H
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 19, 2026; hearing October 27, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: DURING INSPECTION OF AN ACTIVE 7 STORY CONSTRUCTION SITE WITH MULTIPLE WORKERS ONSITE WORKING ON THE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR. REVIEW OF DOB RECORDS REVEALED THAT THE SITE WAS PUT ON A STOP WORK ORDER ON 08/05/202
Cited provision(s): 112 — 28-207.2.2 UNLAWFULLY CONTINUED WORK WHILE NOTICE OF A STOP WORK ORDER
How this type of condition is typically resolved
An active Stop Work Order has to be treated separately from the underlying summons. The cited unsafe or unpermitted condition must be corrected or legalized, required permits/penalties addressed, and the issuing agency must formally rescind or modify the order before prohibited work resumes.
Hearing issues to verify
- What exact work was covered by the Stop Work Order: all work or only part of the project?
- Was the activity observed after the order actually prohibited work, or was it authorized safety / emergency / corrective work?
- Was the Stop Work Order already rescinded or modified before the activity alleged in the summons?
Evidence that may matter
- Copy of the Stop Work Order and any rescission/modification notice
- DOB permit records and inspector correspondence
- Daily logs, photographs and contractor records showing when work stopped or resumed
- Evidence identifying any limited corrective/safety work performed
Construction Fence — Summons 39558126L
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 19, 2026; hearing October 27, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: BC3307.4 WARNING SIGN: AN ACTIVE SITE WHILE WALKING UNDER THE SHED THAT HAD MULTIPLE HIDDEN CORNERS MADE BY THE CONSTRUCTION FENCE I OBSERVED THAT A FEW OF THE MIRRORS UNDER THE SHED WERE BROKEN/MISSING NOT ALL
Cited provision(s): 1P1
How this type of condition is typically resolved
Construction-fence charges generally require bringing the fence, gates, viewing panels, height and site protection into compliance with the approved construction-safety setup and maintaining it for the required duration.
Hearing issues to verify
- Did the fence configuration on the inspection date match the approved/logistics plan?
- Was the cited opening or defect temporary and promptly corrected?
- Was a permit or construction-fence filing active where required?
Evidence that may matter
- Approved construction-fence/site logistics documents
- Dated photographs
- Contractor logs and correction invoice
- Permit/filing record
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39558129R
CLASS - 1 · Issued August 19, 2026; hearing October 27, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: A 7 STORY BUILDING W/STANDPIPE I OBSERVED THE ELECTRICAL ALARM SYSTEM INSTALLED AT THE CELLAR. I REQUESTED TO SEE THE ELECTRICAL PERMIT FOR THE INSTALL OF THE STANDPIPE ALARM WHICH IS REQUIRED BY CODE BC3303.8.
Cited provision(s): 1C9 — 27-3018(B) ELECTRICAL 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
Stop Work Order — Summons 39558133J
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 19, 2026; hearing October 27, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: DURING INSPECTION OF AN ACTIVE SITE THAT WAS PUT ON A STOP WORK ORDER ON 08/05/2026 FOR NOT HAVING A SUPERINTENDENT ONSITE, THE LOG BOOK REVEALED THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT #028983 VISITED THE SITE, SIGNED IN AND
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
An active Stop Work Order has to be treated separately from the underlying summons. The cited unsafe or unpermitted condition must be corrected or legalized, required permits/penalties addressed, and the issuing agency must formally rescind or modify the order before prohibited work resumes.
Hearing issues to verify
- What exact work was covered by the Stop Work Order: all work or only part of the project?
- Was the activity observed after the order actually prohibited work, or was it authorized safety / emergency / corrective work?
- Was the Stop Work Order already rescinded or modified before the activity alleged in the summons?
Evidence that may matter
- Copy of the Stop Work Order and any rescission/modification notice
- DOB permit records and inspector correspondence
- Daily logs, photographs and contractor records showing when work stopped or resumed
- Evidence identifying any limited corrective/safety work performed
Other Building / Code Compliance — Summons 39558127N
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 19, 2026; hearing October 27, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: DURING INSPECTION OF AN ACTIVE 7 STORY BUILDING WHILE WALKING THROUGHOUT THE STAIRCASES, I OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO SIGNAGE INDICATORS IN SOME OF THE STAIRCASES AS REQUIRED BY CODE. SIGNAGE IS REQUIRED FOR WO
Cited provision(s): 235 — 27-393, BC 1019.1.7 (2008 CODE) & BC 1022.8 (2014 CODE) STAIR AND/OR FLOOR IDENTIFICATION SIGNS MISSING AND/OR DEFECTIVE.
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
Site Safety / Safeguarding — Summons 39558130Y
CLASS - 2 · Issued August 19, 2026; hearing October 27, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: 3308.5.4 TAUT SYSTEMS: THE FALL CABLE SYSTEM & NETTING IN PLACE WAS SAGGING, AND HANGING THROUGHOUT EVERY FLOOR NEAR THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING. WHERE THE VERTICAL SAFETY NETTING RELIES UPON A TAUT SYSTEM, THE NE
Cited provision(s): 209 — BC 3301.2,27-1009(A) FAIL TO SAFEGUARD PERS/PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OP
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
Case-specific next step
For this property, the first paid review should reconcile the 12 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