Skip to content
Violation library › Case analysis › 28-301.1
Inspector-description analysis · field review

Plumbing fixture and drainage configuration: NYC DOB 28-301.1 / OATH summons 39195902P

Original enforcement allegation, not a proven case outcome. The quotation below is from an inspector-written description in a public-record dataset. Extracts may end mid-sentence. The inspection origin, complete supporting evidence, legal finding, and disposition have not been independently verified. Interpretive explanations below are explicitly analytical possibilities.
Law citation: 28-301.1OATH infraction: 102Summons: 39195902P

Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export

ATOI OBSERVED PVC PIPPING BEING USED ON INTAKE OF HOT WATER HEATERS ON FLOORS BASEMENT THROUGH 7TH FLOOR PER PC 701.9 PLASTIC PIPE. PLASTIC PIPING AND FITTINGS SHALL NOT BE USED. EXCEPTIONS: 1. PLASTIC PIPING A

Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39195902P; BIN 4620994; export issue date 07/13/2026. 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 description is at the export’s approximately 210-character field limit and may terminate mid-word or mid-sentence.

Get the complete, authentic notice: search summons 39195902P 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: 28-301.1; recorded infraction: 102. Primary legal issue: safe building maintenance. Interpretive issue: Owner maintenance obligation. AC 28-301.1 requires buildings, equipment, safeguards and means of egress to be kept safe and maintained. The physical condition, rather than whether a particular permit exists, is normally the central question.

What must be tested: The applicable underlying technical standard and the actual defective component determine a lawful repair. An assertion that the building is generally safe does not rebut a specific defect.

Possible exceptions and legal limitations: An exemption from cyclical façade reporting does not exempt a building from general safe-maintenance duties. Determine whether the special rule actually applies. 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. Plumbing fixture and drainage configuration

Investigative test: Map each named fixture/connection to the approved layout and check who installed it and whether the work requires plumbing filing or licensed trade.

Evidence matched to this issue: Fixture schedule, riser drawings, photos, licensed-plumber report, permit history and test/inspection or abandonment proof.

Boundary / potential counterexample: A sink or drain alone does not prove creation of a lawful dwelling unit or justify a particular permit type.

2. Authorized use versus observed occupancy

Investigative test: Identify each floor/unit and its claimed function and compare the C of O/authorized plan with actual use on the cited date.

Evidence matched to this issue: C of O and historical building records; dated layout/room photos, use documentation, rent/booking records only where genuinely relevant, and design-professional egress review.

Boundary / potential counterexample: Basement/cellar classification, legal dwelling status and transient-use rules are distinct determinations; do not conflate them.

3. Structural and interior building component

Investigative test: Pin down floor, room and assembly; inspect dimensions, connections, condition and impact on fire separation or egress.

Evidence matched to this issue: Floor plan, measured photos, licensed design-professional report if structural, approved drawings and after-work inspection.

Boundary / potential counterexample: Structural work and cosmetic repair have different approval burdens; the inspector wording alone may not establish the distinction.

Inspector wording mapped to testable facts

Passage 1 — ATOI OBSERVED PVC PIPPING BEING USED ON INTAKE OF HOT WATER HEATERS ON FLOORS BASEMENT THROUGH 7TH FLOOR PER PC 701.9 PLASTIC…

This recorded passage identifies a question about plumbing fixture and drainage configuration, not a proven final determination. Map each named fixture/connection to the approved layout and check who installed it and whether the work requires plumbing filing or licensed trade. A sink or drain alone does not prove creation of a lawful dwelling unit or justify a particular permit type.

Passage 2 — PLASTIC PIPING AND FITTINGS SHALL NOT BE USED.

The negative/deficiency wording is an inspector allegation about a missing, failed or unsafe condition. Determine precisely which component, obligation and time period the asserted absence covers. The supporting documents must establish or rebut the condition on the offense date, not merely its condition today.

Passage 3 — EXCEPTIONS: 1.

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.

Passage 4 — PLASTIC PIPING A

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 floor: BASEMENT, 7TH FLOOR
Tie inspection photographs to the stated level, approved floor plan, egress route, and actual room use.

Case-specific correction decision tree

Branch A — defect remains: assess risk and protection immediately, then undertake an appropriate licensed/engineered repair. Branch B — already repaired: pair before/after photos with scope, inspection and test results that address the *specific* defect. Branch C — inspector misidentified the component: use an elevation/floor key and technical field report; do not rely on an unspecific clean-inspection assertion.

First targeted evidence collection: Fixture schedule, riser drawings, photos, licensed-plumber report, permit history and test/inspection or abandonment proof. This is an investigative request, not a claim that the work or evidence already exists.

Editorial closure of the shortened allegation — NOT source text

Verbatim excerpt ends: “PER PC 701.9 PLASTIC PIPE. PLASTIC PIPING AND FITTINGS SHALL NOT BE USED. EXCEPTIONS: 1. PLASTIC PIPING A”. Non-source editorial completion (conditional reconstruction, not a quotation): “The allegation appears to concern plumbing fixture and drainage configuration; whether additional observations, directions, dates, measurements or exceptions followed is unknown and must be checked in the original summons.”

No missing words, dates, measurements, liability conclusion or regulatory remedy have been invented. Even if the final syllable looks obvious, completing it as a purported inspector quotation would misstate an official record.

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

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.

Call (866) 545-4440