Sidewalk shed and public protection: NYC DOB BC 3301.7 (2014 CODE) / OATH summons 39558781H
Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export
DURING INSPECTION OF THE 17-STORY ALTERATION FACADE, OBSERVED SIDEWALK SHED INSTALLED AT EXPOSURE 1 & 4, EXPOSURE 4 NOT EXTENDED 20 FT AS PER SSP. UPON REQUEST OF SWS DRAWINGS NON WAS PROVIDED. CONTRARY TO BC
Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39558781H; BIN 1040355; export issue date 09/03/2026. 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 39558781H 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 3301.7 (2014 CODE); recorded infraction: 2F7. 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
1. Sidewalk shed and public protection
Investigative test: Map the exact frontage/exposure and public route; compare installed shed, structural supports, overhead dimensions and illumination to plans and edition-specific requirements.
Evidence matched to this issue: Sidewalk shed permit/drawings, elevation key, street-view photos showing pedestrian path and licensed-contractor correction record.
Boundary / potential counterexample: Need for a shed, adequacy of an installed shed and failure to maintain shed lighting are different allegations.
2. 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 — DURING INSPECTION OF THE 17-STORY ALTERATION FACADE, OBSERVED SIDEWALK SHED INSTALLED AT EXPOSURE 1 & 4, EXPOSURE 4 NOT EXTEN…
This recorded passage identifies a question about sidewalk shed and public protection, not a proven final determination. Map the exact frontage/exposure and public route; compare installed shed, structural supports, overhead dimensions and illumination to plans and edition-specific requirements. Need for a shed, adequacy of an installed shed and failure to maintain shed lighting are different allegations.
Passage 2 — UPON REQUEST OF SWS DRAWINGS NON WAS PROVIDED.
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 3 — CONTRARY TO BC
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, 4
- Use a labeled elevation/key plan and matching photos so findings relate to the correct building face.
- Stated dimensions: 20 FT
- Re-measure in the field, show the measurement origin on an annotated photo and compare the relevant code threshold.
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: Sidewalk shed permit/drawings, elevation key, street-view photos showing pedestrian path and licensed-contractor correction record. 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: “, EXPOSURE 4 NOT EXTENDED 20 FT AS PER SSP. UPON REQUEST OF SWS DRAWINGS NON WAS PROVIDED. CONTRARY TO BC”. Non-source editorial completion (conditional reconstruction, not a quotation): “The allegation appears to concern sidewalk shed and public protection; 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 39558781H 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
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.