Skip to content
Violation library › Case analysis › 28-105.1
Inspector-description analysis · questions and answers

Unprotected openings and fall exposure: NYC DOB 28-105.1 / OATH summons 39204702M

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: 28-105.1OATH infraction: 101Summons: 39204702M

Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export

INTERIOR OF HOUSE FULLY GUTTED WITH NEW JOISTS BEING INSTALLED. NEW OPENING CREATED AT CENTER OF SECOND FLOOR WITH HEADER. NEW PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR. TEMP SHORING AT CELLAR FOR NEW FIRST FLOOR OPENING WITH HEADER. E

Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39204702M; BIN 3132466; export issue date 09/18/2026. 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 39204702M 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: 28-105.1; recorded infraction: 101. Primary legal issue: authorization of regulated work. Interpretive issue: Work requiring a permit. AC 28-105.1 is the general permit requirement for regulated building work; it is not a blanket declaration that every minor repair requires a permit.

What must be tested: Check the work actually performed, its timing, trade, approved plans, and permit history; compare against the permit exemptions in AC 28-105.4, related rules, and separately regulated trades.

Possible exceptions and legal limitations: The ordinary-repair/minor-alteration and emergency-work exceptions are fact-specific. Even permit-exempt work must satisfy other applicable law and may require licensed work or other agency approvals. Eligibility is not established merely because the excerpt uses a word such as “repair”, “permit”, “cellar”, or “occupied”. Refer to DOB permit exemptions, owner alterations.

Specific conditions mentioned in this inspector wording

1. Unprotected openings and fall exposure

Investigative test: Map each floor/edge/opening, measure sizes and working levels and evaluate the applicable guard, cover, signage and worker-access safeguards.

Evidence matched to this issue: Floor-by-floor key plan, opening measurements, edge/cover installation photos and site safety inspection logs.

Boundary / potential counterexample: A generic jobsite safety plan does not prove the named opening was protected at the offense date.

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. Demolition, structural removal or excavation

Investigative test: Determine work stage, support and public/adjoining safeguards; assess whether stop-work, temporary protection and engineered plans are necessary.

Evidence matched to this issue: Dated sequence of work, preconstruction surveys, approved demolition/excavation plans, underpinning/shoring details and trade inspection reports.

Boundary / potential counterexample: Removal of finishes differs from load-bearing demolition; do not infer an approved scope from general photos.

4. 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 — INTERIOR OF HOUSE FULLY GUTTED WITH NEW JOISTS BEING INSTALLED.

This recorded passage identifies a question about structural and interior building component, not a proven final determination. Pin down floor, room and assembly; inspect dimensions, connections, condition and impact on fire separation or egress. Structural work and cosmetic repair have different approval burdens; the inspector wording alone may not establish the distinction.

Passage 2 — NEW OPENING CREATED AT CENTER OF SECOND FLOOR WITH HEADER.

This recorded passage identifies a question about structural and interior building component, not a proven final determination. Pin down floor, room and assembly; inspect dimensions, connections, condition and impact on fire separation or egress. Structural work and cosmetic repair have different approval burdens; the inspector wording alone may not establish the distinction.

Passage 3 — NEW PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR.

This recorded passage identifies a question about structural and interior building component, not a proven final determination. Pin down floor, room and assembly; inspect dimensions, connections, condition and impact on fire separation or egress. Structural work and cosmetic repair have different approval burdens; the inspector wording alone may not establish the distinction.

Passage 4 — TEMP SHORING AT CELLAR FOR NEW FIRST FLOOR OPENING WITH HEADER.

This recorded passage identifies a question about unprotected openings and fall exposure, not a proven final determination. Map each floor/edge/opening, measure sizes and working levels and evaluate the applicable guard, cover, signage and worker-access safeguards. A generic jobsite safety plan does not prove the named opening was protected at the offense date.

Identifiers, locations, measurements and chronology to verify

Identified floor: SECOND FLOOR, CELLAR, FIRST FLOOR
Tie inspection photographs to the stated level, approved floor plan, egress route, and actual room use.

Case-specific correction decision tree

Branch A — work required a permit and lacked one: stop any unauthorized work and evaluate a lawful filing/approved correction or removal, including penalties and inspections. Branch B — minor repair or other exemption is claimed: document work scope and the particular exemption in AC 28-105.4 and 1 RCNY 101-14. Branch C — permit existed: compare permit scope, issuance and work dates; a different permit does not automatically authorize the cited operation.

First targeted evidence collection: Floor-by-floor key plan, opening measurements, edge/cover installation photos and site safety inspection logs. 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: “LOOR WITH HEADER. NEW PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR. TEMP SHORING AT CELLAR FOR NEW FIRST FLOOR OPENING WITH HEADER. E”. Non-source editorial completion (conditional reconstruction, not a quotation): “The allegation appears to concern unprotected openings and fall exposure; 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