Skip to content
Violation library › Case analysis › 28-302.5
Inspector-description analysis · illustrative narrative

Masonry or façade deterioration: NYC DOB 28-302.5 / OATH summons 37036949L

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: 28-302.5OATH infraction: 227Summons: 37036949L

Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export

FAILURE TO FILE ACCEPTABLE AMENDED CYCLE 9C REPORT INDICATING CORRECTION OF UNSAFE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN INITIAL FACADES REPORT REQUIRED BY 28-302.5 FOR CONTROL #902627. REMEDY: FILE ACCEPTABLE REPORT.

Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 37036949L; BIN 1018102; export issue date 08/18/2026. 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 export field may still omit pages, attachments or context contained in the actual summons.

Get the complete, authentic notice: search summons 37036949L 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: 28-302.5; recorded infraction: 227. 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.

Inspector wording mapped to testable facts

Passage 1 — FAILURE TO FILE ACCEPTABLE AMENDED CYCLE 9C REPORT INDICATING CORRECTION OF UNSAFE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN INITIAL FACADES RE…

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 — REMEDY: FILE ACCEPTABLE REPORT.

Treat this passage as an asserted observation or reference. Check the named location, actor, object and time against contemporaneous photos and official filing records before drawing a regulatory conclusion.

Identifiers, locations, measurements and chronology to verify

Device or control number: 902627
Use the record number as a lookup key, then verify it corresponds to this physical device or location.

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

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

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