Masonry or façade deterioration: NYC DOB 28-302.1 / OATH summons 35726867N
Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN FACADE OF BUILDING EXTERIOR AND APPURTENANCES. NOTE: OBSERVED AT TIME OF INSPECTION LOOSE/DISPLACED METAL COPING AT ROOFPARAPET.-CRACKS IN CONCRETE FACADE AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS ON EXPOSURE 1
Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 35726867N; BIN 1090786; export issue date 05/21/2026. 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 35726867N 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. Masonry or façade deterioration
Investigative test: Photograph and locate the defect by elevation and height; evaluate loose-material risk and whether exterior-wall/facade reporting rules apply.
Evidence matched to this issue: Elevation key and dated close-ups, Qualified Exterior Wall Inspector/engineering findings when relevant, protective plan and accepted post-repair inspection.
Boundary / potential counterexample: A material crack description is not a structural diagnosis; cyclical FISP applicability depends on building height and rule exceptions.
2. Roof and weather protection
Investigative test: Identify roof surface, drainage path, penetration and whether the alleged defect affects structure, exits, occupied rooms or adjacent properties.
Evidence matched to this issue: Roof plan, dated interior/exterior photos, contractor moisture/roofing findings, approved details and after-repair test where appropriate.
Boundary / potential counterexample: Not every patch requires an identical permit; ordinary-repair exemption and technical requirements must be tested against scope.
Inspector wording mapped to testable facts
Passage 1 — FAILURE TO MAINTAIN FACADE OF BUILDING EXTERIOR AND APPURTENANCES.
This recorded passage identifies a question about masonry or façade deterioration, not a proven final determination. Photograph and locate the defect by elevation and height; evaluate loose-material risk and whether exterior-wall/facade reporting rules apply. A material crack description is not a structural diagnosis; cyclical FISP applicability depends on building height and rule exceptions.
Passage 2 — NOTE: OBSERVED AT TIME OF INSPECTION LOOSE/DISPLACED METAL COPING AT ROOFPARAPET.-CRACKS IN CONCRETE FACADE AT MULTIPLE LOCAT…
This recorded passage identifies a question about masonry or façade deterioration, not a proven final determination. Photograph and locate the defect by elevation and height; evaluate loose-material risk and whether exterior-wall/facade reporting rules apply. A material crack description is not a structural diagnosis; cyclical FISP applicability depends on building height and rule exceptions.
Identifiers, locations, measurements and chronology to verify
- Identified building exposure: 1
- Use a labeled elevation/key plan and matching photos so findings relate to the correct building face.
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: Elevation key and dated close-ups, Qualified Exterior Wall Inspector/engineering findings when relevant, protective plan and accepted post-repair inspection. 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: “OOSE/DISPLACED METAL COPING AT ROOFPARAPET.-CRACKS IN CONCRETE FACADE AT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS ON EXPOSURE 1”. Non-source editorial completion (conditional reconstruction, not a quotation): “The allegation appears to concern masonry or façade deterioration; 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 35726867N and obtain the signed notice.
- Facade Safety and Inspection Program — 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.