Skip to content
Violation library › Case analysis › 28-201.1
Inspector-description analysis · administrative review

Plumbing fixture and drainage configuration: NYC DOB 28-201.1 / OATH summons 39195409L

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: 28-201.1OATH infraction: 187Summons: 39195409L

Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export

UNLAWFUL ACTS. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS ORDERS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT WITH THE DEPT OF BUILDINGS FOR VIOLATION # 39165089Y. NO PLUMBING PERMIT ON FILE FOR INSTALLATION OF PVC PIPES IN APT 1L BATHROO

Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39195409L; BIN 3072574; export issue date 07/09/2026. 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 39195409L 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. Plumbing fixture and drainage configuration

Investigative test: Map each named fixture/connection to the approved layout and check who installed it and whether the work requires plumbing filing or licensed trade.

Evidence matched to this issue: Fixture schedule, riser drawings, photos, licensed-plumber report, permit history and test/inspection or abandonment proof.

Boundary / potential counterexample: A sink or drain alone does not prove creation of a lawful dwelling unit or justify a particular permit type.

Inspector wording mapped to testable facts

Passage 1 — UNLAWFUL ACTS.

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.

Passage 2 — FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS ORDERS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT WITH THE DEPT OF BUILDINGS FOR VIOLATION # 39165089Y.

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 3 — NO PLUMBING PERMIT ON FILE FOR INSTALLATION OF PVC PIPES IN APT 1L BATHROO

This recorded passage identifies a question about plumbing fixture and drainage configuration, not a proven final determination. Map each named fixture/connection to the approved layout and check who installed it and whether the work requires plumbing filing or licensed trade. A sink or drain alone does not prove creation of a lawful dwelling unit or justify a particular permit type.

Identifiers, locations, measurements and chronology to verify

Previous summons or violation: 39165089Y
Retrieve the earlier violation/order and compare its issuance date, required correction and AEU filing status.

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: Fixture schedule, riser drawings, photos, licensed-plumber report, permit history and test/inspection or abandonment proof. 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: “NGS FOR VIOLATION # 39165089Y. NO PLUMBING PERMIT ON FILE FOR INSTALLATION OF PVC PIPES IN APT 1L BATHROO”. Non-source editorial completion (conditional reconstruction, not a quotation): “The allegation appears to concern plumbing fixture and drainage configuration; 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