Electrical code / permit issue: NYC DOB 27-3018(B) / OATH summons 39202767Y
Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export
AT APPROX 9:30 AM OBSERVED 3 AC SPLIT UNITS @ EXPO 3. 2 UNITS ON 2ND FL AND 1 UNIT @ GROUND LEVEL. WORK IS 100% COMPLETE. NO PERMITS ON FILE FOR SCOPE OF WORK., OBTAIN PERMIT
Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39202767Y; BIN 3036056; export issue date 09/02/2026. 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 39202767Y 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: 27-3018(B); recorded infraction: 1C9. Primary legal issue: electrical code / permit issue. Interpretive issue: Electrical work/permit controls under historic code. This is a historical NYC electrical provision. Some infraction codes distinguish electrical work without a permit from failure to post a required electrical permit; confirm the actual charge.
What must be tested: Use licensed electrician inspection, circuit/panel schedule, DOB NOW/BIS electrical permit history, and dated conditions for the alleged location.
Possible exceptions and legal limitations: The electrical code edition, license requirement and work scope may change the route; do not treat a display allegation as proof of unsafe wiring. Eligibility is not established merely because the excerpt uses a word such as “repair”, “permit”, “cellar”, or “occupied”. Refer to NYC DOB construction codes.
Subject-specific interpretation remains open
The abbreviated narrative and legal citation do not reliably identify one trade or physical component. First map every concrete object, location and action in the complete summons to photographs, approved plans and an inspection timeline; selecting a permit or asserting a statutory exemption now would be guesswork.
Inspector wording mapped to testable facts
Passage 1 — AT APPROX 9:30 AM OBSERVED 3 AC SPLIT UNITS @ EXPO 3. 2 UNITS ON 2ND FL AND 1 UNIT @ GROUND LEVEL.
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 — WORK IS 100% COMPLETE.
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 — NO PERMITS ON FILE FOR SCOPE OF WORK., OBTAIN PERMIT
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.
Identifiers, locations, measurements and chronology to verify
No uniquely parseable earlier summons number, permit number, date, exposure or measurement is established by this excerpt. The full notice and building profile should supply the missing keys; do not invent them.
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.
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 39202767Y 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.