Street / sidewalk occupancy and dot authorization: NYC DOB BC 3307.6,27-1021 / OATH summons 35718526P
Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export
PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION DOES NOT MEET CODE SPECIFICATIONS. NOTE: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OBSERVED LOOSE PARAPET PANEL EXPOSURE 4 ON BROADWAY. REMEDY: COMPLY TO CODE SPECIFICATION.
Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 35718526P; BIN 1063500; export issue date 09/24/2025. The earlier export status was ACTIVE; obtain current status from DOB or OATH. The CSV contains a respondent mailing address, which is not presumed to identify the inspected property. This is the entire description available in the supplied export, not a certified full summons, inspector notes or evidentiary exhibits. The export field may still omit pages, attachments or context contained in the actual summons.
Get the complete, authentic notice: search summons 35718526P in OATH Summons Finder instructions (download actual summons) and download the actual summons; review DOB records in NYC DOB records search. Never substitute the editorial discussion below for the inspector’s words.
Charge classification: law controls; keywords do not
Recorded citation: BC 3307.6,27-1021; recorded infraction: 223. Primary legal issue: sidewalk-shed requirement. Interpretive issue: Sidewalk-shed protection. BC 3307.6 addresses sidewalk-shed protection requirements, with edition-specific triggers and design details.
What must be tested: Confirm sidewalk/public access, coverage, construction operations, shed permit and approved plan, width/height/lighting/support in the edition that applies.
Possible exceptions and legal limitations: Whether shed installation is required depends on work, public exposure and applicable exceptions; a poor shed condition and a failure to install a needed shed are different cases. Eligibility is not established merely because the excerpt uses a word such as “repair”, “permit”, “cellar”, or “occupied”. Refer to NYC DOB construction codes.
Specific conditions mentioned in this inspector wording
1. Street / sidewalk occupancy and dot authorization
Investigative test: Locate equipment or obstruction relative to curb and walking route; compare the exact street-occupancy activity and time to NYC DOT authorization.
Evidence matched to this issue: DOT permit and approved limits, traffic-control/route sketch, location photos, equipment logs and any order to reopen pedestrian access.
Boundary / potential counterexample: DOB work permits and DOT street-use permits authorize different activities; one does not necessarily replace the other.
2. Sidewalk shed and public protection
Investigative test: Map the exact frontage/exposure and public route; compare installed shed, structural supports, overhead dimensions and illumination to plans and edition-specific requirements.
Evidence matched to this issue: Sidewalk shed permit/drawings, elevation key, street-view photos showing pedestrian path and licensed-contractor correction record.
Boundary / potential counterexample: Need for a shed, adequacy of an installed shed and failure to maintain shed lighting are different allegations.
3. Masonry or façade deterioration
Investigative test: Photograph and locate the defect by elevation and height; evaluate loose-material risk and whether exterior-wall/facade reporting rules apply.
Evidence matched to this issue: Elevation key and dated close-ups, Qualified Exterior Wall Inspector/engineering findings when relevant, protective plan and accepted post-repair inspection.
Boundary / potential counterexample: A material crack description is not a structural diagnosis; cyclical FISP applicability depends on building height and rule exceptions.
Inspector wording mapped to testable facts
Passage 1 — PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION DOES NOT MEET CODE SPECIFICATIONS.
This recorded passage identifies a question about sidewalk shed and public protection, not a proven final determination. Map the exact frontage/exposure and public route; compare installed shed, structural supports, overhead dimensions and illumination to plans and edition-specific requirements. Need for a shed, adequacy of an installed shed and failure to maintain shed lighting are different allegations.
Passage 2 — NOTE: AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION OBSERVED LOOSE PARAPET PANEL EXPOSURE 4 ON BROADWAY.
This recorded passage identifies a question about street / sidewalk occupancy and DOT authorization, not a proven final determination. Locate equipment or obstruction relative to curb and walking route; compare the exact street-occupancy activity and time to NYC DOT authorization. DOB work permits and DOT street-use permits authorize different activities; one does not necessarily replace the other.
Passage 3 — REMEDY: COMPLY TO CODE SPECIFICATION.
Treat this passage as an asserted observation or reference. Check the named location, actor, object and time against contemporaneous photos and official filing records before drawing a regulatory conclusion.
Identifiers, locations, measurements and chronology to verify
- Identified building exposure: 4
- Use a labeled elevation/key plan and matching photos so findings relate to the correct building face.
Case-specific correction decision tree
Branch A — physical or documentary defect persists: evaluate risk and the controlling technical text, then select correction. Branch B — it was already compliant on the cited date: marshal contemporaneous approved records and site evidence. Branch C — scope, code edition or identification is wrong: prepare a fact-by-fact comparison to the actual summons and cited regulation before advancing a defense or revised filing.
First targeted evidence collection: DOT permit and approved limits, traffic-control/route sketch, location photos, equipment logs and any order to reopen pedestrian access. This is an investigative request, not a claim that the work or evidence already exists.
Editorial closure of the shortened allegation — NOT source text
The visible description does not show the same clear character-limit truncation flag, but additional pages or attachments may still exist. No editorial sentence is treated as part of the inspector’s wording.
Response, certification and closing evidence
A hearing defense, correction of the underlying condition, a DOB AEU Certificate of Correction and payment of an imposed penalty are distinct questions. Retrieve the summons and confirm the OATH hearing or outcome and DOB violation status. Under current DOB guidance, Certificate of Correction review requests are made in DOB NOW: Safety → Violations & Notices of Deficiency; submitter/certifier signatures and evidence requirements are case-specific. Refer to Certificate of Correction instructions.
Source record limitations: The dataset does not authenticate who inspected the property, why inspection started, whether a defense succeeded, which contractor made repairs or whether AEU later accepted a correction. Do not turn this example into a claimed client success story or an invented inspection history.
Primary authority and fact-check links
- OATH Summons Finder instructions (download actual summons) — enter summons 35718526P and obtain the signed notice.
- NYC DOB construction codes — verify law wording and any exception.
- BIS / DOB NOW record limitations — older BIS violations may not be in DOB NOW.
- Certificate of Correction instructions — review current COC procedure, signatures and evidence.
Related library and official records
Official sources: Search DOB records · DOB summonses · Certificate of Correction FAQs · OATH hearing options · Construction codes
Need a resolution plan tied to the full summons?
Building Violation LLC can review the violation wording, permits, drawings, correction evidence and available OATH hearing procedures. A web example is not a determination of compliance for any property.