What DOB is alleging at this property
This October hearing page is not just a schedule entry. The supplied DOB extract contains 5 summons records for this property identifier. The charge mix is: 3 Work Without a Permit summonses; 2 Failure to Maintain summonses. The hearing date is October 21, 2026; the source issue date(s) are July 29, 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.
Failure to Maintain — Summons 39198186R
CLASS - 2 · Issued July 29, 2026; hearing October 21, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT EXP 2 AND 3 OBSERVED LARGE PILES OF CONST DEBRIS. BEDRIS CONSTS IF COMBUSTIBLE WOOD, DRYWALL. CARDBOARD, VINYL SIDING SCRAP AND PALLETS. ALSO METAL STUD SCRAP, OLD TUB, APPLIANCES ETC., REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE
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
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39198184N
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 29, 2026; hearing October 21, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: OBSERVED IN BATHS NEW LAVATORY, TOILET AND SHOWER BODY ROUGHS WITH PVS PIPING AND RED BLUE PEX PIPING. ALSO NEW GAS LINES RAN AT LAUNDRY CLOSET AND KITCHEN. NEW PIPE IN LAUNDRY RUNS FROM FLOOR, NEW VALVE FOR LA
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
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39198187Z
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 29, 2026; hearing October 21, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: OBSERVED YELLOW AND WHITE ROMEX WIRING INSTALLED IN WALLS, CEILING AND AT ELECTRIC PANEL. IN BATH ROMEX WIRING PROTRUDING FROM WALLS AND CEILING. NEW BLUE AND GREY PLASTIC WALL BOXES WITH NEW WIRE COILED INSIDE
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
Work Without a Permit — Summons 39198185P
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 29, 2026; hearing October 21, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: OBSERVED 2 DORMERS APPROX 12' WIDE BUILT AT EXP 2 AND 4. DORMERS ALTERED FROM A GABLE TO DUCTH HIP SHED DORMER. DORMERS ARE SHEATHED, ROOFED WITH WINDOWS. THEY ALSO ALLOW FULL HEIGHT STANDING ROOM. ALSO OBSERVE
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 39198188K
CLASS - 1 · Issued July 29, 2026; hearing October 21, 2026. · Hearing status: PENDING
DOB allegation in the source extract: AT ATTIC STAIRS THERE IS NO RAILING TO PREVENT FALLS. WORKERS ACTIVELY WORKING IN ATTIC AND WIRES, WOOD, DUCTS ETC PRESENT TRIP HAZARD. IMMEDIATE RISK FOR FALL INTO OPEN STAIRS, INJURY OR DEATH., REPAIR AND/REP
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 5 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