Plumbing fixture and drainage configuration: NYC DOB BC 3301.2,27-1009(A) / OATH summons 39558579Y

Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export

AT THE TIME OF MY INSPECTION OF A 3 STORY BUILDING, I OBSERVED AT EXPOSURE # 1 AND 3 HATCH FOR THE BASEMENT THAT WAS LEAKING WATER TO BASEMENT, ALSO DRAIN PIPE AND DRAIN WAS CLOGGED THAT ALLOWED WATER TO ENTER

Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39558579Y; BIN 3055710; export issue date 08/31/2026. 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 39558579Y 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: BC 3301.2,27-1009(A); recorded infraction: 209. Primary legal issue: construction site safety and protection. Interpretive issue: Building Code provision, edition-specific. The cited Building Code provision is a technical construction/safety rule. The abbreviated dataset label does not supply the full legal elements.

What must be tested: Retrieve the actual section in the applicable code edition, scope of work and any cross-referenced administrative/technical requirements before selecting an approach.

Possible exceptions and legal limitations: Exceptions and thresholds are section-specific; no permit or repair exemption is presumed merely from this reference. 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

Inspector wording mapped to testable facts

Passage 1 — AT THE TIME OF MY INSPECTION OF A 3 STORY BUILDING, I OBSERVED AT EXPOSURE # 1 AND 3 HATCH FOR THE BASEMENT THAT WAS LEAKING …

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

Identified building exposure: 1

Use a labeled elevation/key plan and matching photos so findings relate to the correct building face.

Identified floor: BASEMENT

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: 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: “ENT THAT WAS LEAKING WATER TO BASEMENT, ALSO DRAIN PIPE AND DRAIN WAS CLOGGED THAT ALLOWED WATER TO ENTER”. 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

• OATH Summons Finder instructions (download actual summons) — enter summons 39558579Y 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

• Read NYC law section BC 3301.2,27-1009(A)
• OATH code 209
• All enforcement examples

Official sources: Search DOB records · DOB summonses · Certificate of Correction FAQs · OATH hearing options · Construction codes