Skip to content
Violation library › Case analysis › 28-302.1
Inspector-description analysis · questions and answers

Wall / exterior structural condition: NYC DOB 28-302.1 / OATH summons 39164648R

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: 28-302.1OATH infraction: 104Summons: 39164648R

Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export

PER PREVIOUS RCA ISSUED ON 02/06/2024 BY BADGE # 3222 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING WALL(S) OR APPURTENANCES. NOTE: OBSERVED RETAINING WALL AT REAR OF THIS LOCATION APPROXIMATELY 100 LINEAR FEET AND 5 FT IN HEIG

Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39164648R; BIN 4263395; export issue date 10/23/2025. 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 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 39164648R 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: 28-302.1; recorded infraction: 104. Primary legal issue: exterior wall / inspection obligation. Interpretive issue: Exterior wall and appurtenance safety. AC 28-302.1 requires safe exterior walls/appurtenances and underpins periodic FISP examinations for buildings generally greater than six stories. The specific defect must be distinguished from a missing cyclic report.

What must be tested: Record the elevation, component, spalling/loose material, water ingress, public exposure and whether a qualified exterior wall inspector or structural professional is needed.

Possible exceptions and legal limitations: The FISP six-story threshold/limited wall adjacency provisions are not global exemptions from unsafe-façade correction. Confirm building height and special rule applicability before invoking an exception. Eligibility is not established merely because the excerpt uses a word such as “repair”, “permit”, “cellar”, or “occupied”. Refer to Facade Safety and Inspection Program.

Specific conditions mentioned in this inspector wording

1. Wall / exterior structural condition

Investigative test: Identify wall type, exposed side, movement/deflection or separation and potential public/adjoining exposure; obtain structural assessment if needed.

Evidence matched to this issue: Engineer/architect condition report, plans/sections, measured photos and contractor inspection or monitoring record.

Boundary / potential counterexample: Exterior-wall inspection requirements and general wall maintenance apply differently by site and code edition.

Inspector wording mapped to testable facts

Passage 1 — PER PREVIOUS RCA ISSUED ON 02/06/2024 BY BADGE # 3222 FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING WALL(S) OR APPURTENANCES.

This recorded passage identifies a question about wall / exterior structural condition, not a proven final determination. Identify wall type, exposed side, movement/deflection or separation and potential public/adjoining exposure; obtain structural assessment if needed. Exterior-wall inspection requirements and general wall maintenance apply differently by site and code edition.

Passage 2 — NOTE: OBSERVED RETAINING WALL AT REAR OF THIS LOCATION APPROXIMATELY 100 LINEAR FEET AND 5 FT IN HEIG

This recorded passage identifies a question about wall / exterior structural condition, not a proven final determination. Identify wall type, exposed side, movement/deflection or separation and potential public/adjoining exposure; obtain structural assessment if needed. Exterior-wall inspection requirements and general wall maintenance apply differently by site and code edition.

Identifiers, locations, measurements and chronology to verify

Cited calendar date: 02/06/2024
Check whether this is a permit expiry, previous summons issuance, reinspection or compliance deadline; each has a different consequence.
Stated dimensions: 5 FT
Re-measure in the field, show the measurement origin on an annotated photo and compare the relevant code threshold.

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: Engineer/architect condition report, plans/sections, measured photos and contractor inspection or monitoring record. 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: “ES. NOTE: OBSERVED RETAINING WALL AT REAR OF THIS LOCATION APPROXIMATELY 100 LINEAR FEET AND 5 FT IN HEIG”. Non-source editorial completion (conditional reconstruction, not a quotation): “The allegation appears to concern wall / exterior structural condition; 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