Required access to permitted work: NYC DOB 28-116.1 / OATH summons 39204165X
Original inspector allegation — verbatim available export
AT TIME OF INSPECTION, WORKER ON SITE WOULD NOT ALLOW ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. WORKER LOCKED DOOR AS WORKER INSIDE CONTINUED TO WORK. ECB ISSUED FOR DENIED ACCESS TO ACTIVE PERMITTED WORK SITE., PROVIDE ACCESS AN
Source limit: Source reference: NYC OATH/DOB summons 39204165X; BIN 3044798; export issue date 09/15/2026. 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 39204165X 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: 28-116.1; recorded infraction: 2A7. Primary legal issue: specific cited provision requiring manual cross-check. Interpretive issue: Required inspection access and exposed construction. AC 28-116.1 places inspection obligations on permit-required work: the work must remain accessible and exposed for inspection, and the permit holder must enable access. This is not an allegation that every visible item is inherently defective.
What must be tested: Compare permit-holder identity, inspection request, time/site access, status of concealing construction, and whether the inspector was denied an opportunity to see ongoing work.
Possible exceptions and legal limitations: Whether the cited inspection requirement applied depends on the permit/work stage; secure the actual inspection notes and consider any documented access or timing discrepancy. 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. Required access to permitted work
Investigative test: Identify the permit holder, inspection request, allowed access path and which work was or was not exposed at the relevant time.
Evidence matched to this issue: Permit history, scheduling/inspection log, gate/entry photos, contractor communication and accounts from persons present.
Boundary / potential counterexample: A denial-of-access allegation is not itself proof that concealed construction violates the technical code.
Inspector wording mapped to testable facts
Passage 1 — AT TIME OF INSPECTION, WORKER ON SITE WOULD NOT ALLOW ACCESS FOR INSPECTION.
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 — WORKER LOCKED DOOR AS WORKER INSIDE CONTINUED TO WORK.
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 — ECB ISSUED FOR DENIED ACCESS TO ACTIVE PERMITTED WORK SITE., PROVIDE ACCESS AN
This recorded passage identifies a question about required access to permitted work, not a proven final determination. Identify the permit holder, inspection request, allowed access path and which work was or was not exposed at the relevant time. A denial-of-access allegation is not itself proof that concealed construction violates the technical code.
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.
First targeted evidence collection: Permit history, scheduling/inspection log, gate/entry photos, contractor communication and accounts from persons present. 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: “ INSIDE CONTINUED TO WORK. ECB ISSUED FOR DENIED ACCESS TO ACTIVE PERMITTED WORK SITE., PROVIDE ACCESS AN”. Non-source editorial completion (conditional reconstruction, not a quotation): “The allegation appears to concern required access to permitted work; 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 39204165X 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.