Boiler device inspection and filing: NYC DOB 28-301.1 / OATH summons 39202862M
Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export
PEERLESS BOILER NOT LEGALLY ABANDONED+PERMIT 320967593 IS EXPIRED WITHOUT SIGNOFF;CORRECT VIOLATION+SUBMIT CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39202862M; BIN 3039775; export issue date 09/02/2026. 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 export field may still omit pages, attachments or context contained in the actual summons.
Get the complete, authentic notice: search summons 39202862M 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: 354. 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. Boiler device inspection and filing
Investigative test: Determine whether the alleged defect is missing periodic inspection/report, a physical unsafe condition or unpermitted replacement; link the device identifier to the required inspection cycle.
Evidence matched to this issue: Boiler device/installation record, agency filing receipt, inspector qualification, report and any affirmation-of-correction documentation.
Boundary / potential counterexample: A physical tune-up invoice is not a filed annual boiler inspection report, and filing alone does not resolve a real hazard.
2. Earlier order and correction filing
Investigative test: Find the prior notice/order number and the deadline; compare the submitted COC, AEU decision and actual correction chronology.
Evidence matched to this issue: Earlier summons and any linked violation history; DOB AEU request status, submission receipt, accepted/disapproved notices and photographs of each corrected item.
Boundary / potential counterexample: Do not mistake a reference to work listed on the old summons for a fresh finding of the same hazardous condition.
3. Permit validity timeline
Investigative test: Compare the alleged work time with actual issuance, expiry and renewal records; identify which specific activity occurred after expiration.
Evidence matched to this issue: Full permit history, renewal record, contractor daily logs, dated inspection photographs and closeout entries.
Boundary / potential counterexample: Distinguish work after expiry from the mere appearance of an expired document in a database.
4. Zoning, site use or regulated sign
Investigative test: Identify zoning lot/district and exact installation or use; check approved surveys, permitted dimensions, occupancy use and applicable zoning map date.
Evidence matched to this issue: Survey and zoning analysis, dated dimensioned photographs, approved drawings and any relevant prior permit, variance or grandfathering documentation.
Boundary / potential counterexample: Grandfathered status or variance cannot be presumed from an older installation without lawful-history proof.
Inspector wording mapped to testable facts
Passage 1 — PEERLESS BOILER NOT LEGALLY ABANDONED+PERMIT 320967593 IS EXPIRED WITHOUT SIGNOFF
This recorded passage identifies a question about boiler device inspection and filing, not a proven final determination. Determine whether the alleged defect is missing periodic inspection/report, a physical unsafe condition or unpermitted replacement; link the device identifier to the required inspection cycle. A physical tune-up invoice is not a filed annual boiler inspection report, and filing alone does not resolve a real hazard.
Passage 2 — CORRECT VIOLATION+SUBMIT CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
This recorded passage identifies a question about earlier order and correction filing, not a proven final determination. Find the prior notice/order number and the deadline; compare the submitted COC, AEU decision and actual correction chronology. Do not mistake a reference to work listed on the old summons for a fresh finding of the same hazardous condition.
Identifiers, locations, measurements and chronology to verify
- Job, permit or filing identifier: 320967593
- Query the exact application/permit; compare the authorized work description with inspection observations, dates and sign-off.
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: Boiler device/installation record, agency filing receipt, inspector qualification, report and any affirmation-of-correction documentation. 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 39202862M 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.