Earlier order and correction filing: NYC DOB 28-201.1 / OATH summons 39176401N
Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export
NO ACCESS TO UN-OCCUPPIED BUILDING. NO CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTIONS ON FILE AS PER REQUEST OF COMMISSIONER FOR CLASS 1 WORK WITH OUT PERMIT VIOLATION #39068066R ISSUED ON 8/15/20222 FOR 2ND FLOOR JOISTS REMOVED A
Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39176401N; BIN 1003282; export issue date 02/06/2026. 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 39176401N 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: 28-201.1; recorded infraction: 187. Primary legal issue: specific unlawful act or order under broad enforcement authority. Interpretive issue: General unlawful act or Commissioner-order noncompliance. AC 28-201.1 broadly prohibits activities conflicting with applicable construction, zoning and agency rules and noncompliance with Commissioner orders. The factual predicate comes from the cited notice and supporting evidence.
What must be tested: Identify the actual order, conduct, date and specific violated regulation. Do not assume a demolition, occupancy or maintenance remedy based solely on this broad section.
Possible exceptions and legal limitations: Determine whether the source cites a separate specific regulation or an order with its own requirements. Broad authority does not replace proof of the particular charge. 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. 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.
2. 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 — NO ACCESS TO UN-OCCUPPIED BUILDING.
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 2 — NO CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTIONS ON FILE AS PER REQUEST OF COMMISSIONER FOR CLASS 1 WORK WITH OUT PERMIT VIOLATION #39068066R IS…
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
- Previous summons or violation: 39068066R
- Retrieve the earlier violation/order and compare its issuance date, required correction and AEU filing status.
- Job, permit or filing identifier: VIOLATION
- Query the exact application/permit; compare the authorized work description with inspection observations, dates and sign-off.
- Identified floor: 2ND FLOOR
- Tie inspection photographs to the stated level, approved floor plan, egress route, and actual room use.
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: Earlier summons and any linked violation history; DOB AEU request status, submission receipt, accepted/disapproved notices and photographs of each corrected item. 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: “FOR CLASS 1 WORK WITH OUT PERMIT VIOLATION #39068066R ISSUED ON 8/15/20222 FOR 2ND FLOOR JOISTS REMOVED A”. Non-source editorial completion (conditional reconstruction, not a quotation): “The allegation appears to concern earlier order and correction filing; 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
- OATH Summons Finder instructions (download actual summons) — enter summons 39176401N 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.