Skip to content
Violation library › Case analysis › BC 1016.2
Inspector-description analysis · field review

Means of egress and exit protection: NYC DOB BC 1016.2 / OATH summons 39203889R

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: BC 1016.2OATH infraction: 221Summons: 39203889R

Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN EXIT PASSAGEWAY FREE AND CLEAR. NOTED: EXIT PASSAGEWAY WIDTH REDUCED BY VARIOUS HOUSE HOLD ITEMS AT FLOORS 2 THRU 10 IN STAIRWAY B AND 2ND FLOOR IN STAIR A., PROVIDE PROPER CORRIDOR WIDTH; C

Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39203889R; BIN 1041706; export issue date 09/12/2026. 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 39203889R 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 1016.2; recorded infraction: 221. Primary legal issue: specific cited provision requiring manual cross-check. 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. Means of egress and exit protection

Investigative test: Trace the occupant route from the cited point to discharge; check door swing, clear width, obstruction, illumination and the approved layout.

Evidence matched to this issue: Approved egress plan, location-labeled photos and measured clearance, fire/exit inspection records, dated removal or hardware repair evidence.

Boundary / potential counterexample: Do not advise blocking an occupied egress route as a temporary fix; applicability may differ for old and altered buildings.

2. Structural and interior building component

Investigative test: Pin down floor, room and assembly; inspect dimensions, connections, condition and impact on fire separation or egress.

Evidence matched to this issue: Floor plan, measured photos, licensed design-professional report if structural, approved drawings and after-work inspection.

Boundary / potential counterexample: Structural work and cosmetic repair have different approval burdens; the inspector wording alone may not establish the distinction.

Inspector wording mapped to testable facts

Passage 1 — FAILURE TO MAINTAIN EXIT PASSAGEWAY FREE AND CLEAR.

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 — NOTED: EXIT PASSAGEWAY WIDTH REDUCED BY VARIOUS HOUSE HOLD ITEMS AT FLOORS 2 THRU 10 IN STAIRWAY B AND 2ND FLOOR IN STAIR A.,…

This recorded passage identifies a question about means of egress and exit protection, not a proven final determination. Trace the occupant route from the cited point to discharge; check door swing, clear width, obstruction, illumination and the approved layout. Do not advise blocking an occupied egress route as a temporary fix; applicability may differ for old and altered buildings.

Identifiers, locations, measurements and chronology to verify

Identified floor: 2ND FLOOR
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: Approved egress plan, location-labeled photos and measured clearance, fire/exit inspection records, dated removal or hardware repair evidence. 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: “ HOLD ITEMS AT FLOORS 2 THRU 10 IN STAIRWAY B AND 2ND FLOOR IN STAIR A., PROVIDE PROPER CORRIDOR WIDTH; C”. Non-source editorial completion (conditional reconstruction, not a quotation): “The allegation appears to concern means of egress and exit 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

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