Windows, doors and openings: NYC DOB 28-301.1 / OATH summons 35728383X

Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING IN CODE-COMPLIANT MANNER. ATOI OBSERVED BROKEN WINDOWS AT EXPOSURE #1 AND #3 AND WATER GUTTERS HANGING/LOOSE ATEXPOSURE #2 OVER GROWN GREENERY ON YARD. REMEDY: REPAIR AND REPLACE.

Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 35728383X; BIN 3121084; export issue date 08/27/2026. 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 35728383X 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: 28-301.1; recorded infraction: 102. Primary legal issue: safe building maintenance. Interpretive issue: Owner maintenance obligation. AC 28-301.1 requires buildings, equipment, safeguards and means of egress to be kept safe and maintained. The physical condition, rather than whether a particular permit exists, is normally the central question.

What must be tested: The applicable underlying technical standard and the actual defective component determine a lawful repair. An assertion that the building is generally safe does not rebut a specific defect.

Possible exceptions and legal limitations: An exemption from cyclical façade reporting does not exempt a building from general safe-maintenance duties. Determine whether the special rule actually applies. 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 — FAILURE TO MAINTAIN BUILDING IN CODE-COMPLIANT MANNER.

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 2 — ATOI OBSERVED BROKEN WINDOWS AT EXPOSURE #1 AND #3 AND WATER GUTTERS HANGING/LOOSE ATEXPOSURE #2 OVER GROWN GREENERY ON YARD.

This recorded passage identifies a question about windows, doors and openings, not a proven final determination. Identify and dimension each named opening against approved elevations/floor plans and the impact on structure, egress or light/ventilation. A replacement-in-kind and new structural opening are not the same scope; a permit exemption cannot be assumed.

Passage 3 — REMEDY: REPAIR AND REPLACE.

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

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: Marked-up approved drawing, dated measured photos, specification and filing history for changed openings. 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

• OATH Summons Finder instructions (download actual summons) — enter summons 35728383X 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 28-301.1
• OATH code 102
• All enforcement examples

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