FINACT2019A-04435-CHC-ROC.pdf

2019A-04435-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2020-03-05

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Sree Antari, Case No. 2019-04435 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2019A-04435-CHC-ROC v. GTE Construction LLC, FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE License Nos. ROC 271695, 272093 DECISION AND ORDER RESPONDENT.

Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(B), the Registrar may review and accept, modify, or reject an administrative law judge’s written decision. If the Registrar modifies or rejects that decision, then the Registrar must provide written justification setting forth the reasons for the modification or rejection of each finding of fact or conclusion of law. REGISTRAR’S ACCEPTANCE In this case, a hearing was held, and the administrative law judge issued a written decision. See Administrative Law Judge Decision, attached. The Registrar reviewed that decision and accepts it. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Because the Registrar has accepted the administrative law judge’s decision, that decision is the final administrative decision in this case and becomes effective on April 12, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 payable to the Registrar on or before 30 days from the effective date of this Order. Payment may be hand-delivered to the Registrar’s physical address or mailed to:

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St.– Ste. 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 Toll Free (877)692-9762 Lg131 8/19

Registrar of Contractors P.O. Box 6748 Phoenix, Arizona 85505-6748 FINAL NOTE On page 4, line 16 replace “December 23, 2019” with “December 13, 2019”. On

page 7, line 9 replace “A.R.S. § 32-” with “A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8)”.

Dated March 3, 2020. By: /s/ Joseph Citelli Joseph Citelli Chief Counsel Chief of Legal and Recovery Fund Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail March 3, 2020 to: Respondent GTE Construction LLC DBA A2Z Cabinets and Floors PO Box 8595 Surprise, AZ 85374 Complainant Sree Antari 5350 E. Deer Valley Dr., Unit 1250 Phoenix, AZ 85054 Copy sent electronically this same date to: Office of Administrative Hearings Roger A. Geddes, Administrative Law Judge Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar Case No. 2019-04435 / SA

of 2 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS 1700 W. Washington St.– Ste. 105 – Phoenix, AZ 85007-2812 Telephone (602)542-1525 Toll Free (877)692-9762 Lg131 8/19 RECEIVED 2.4.2020 ROC LEGAL

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Sree Antari, No. 2019A-04435-CHC-ROC COMPLAINANT v. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GTE Construction LLC, DECISION DBA: A2Z Cabinets and Floors ROC License: ROC 271695, 272093, RESPONDENT

HEARING: January 15, 2020, 8:30 A.M. APPEARANCES: Complainant Sree Antari appeared on her own behalf: no appearance was made by Respondent or on its behalf ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Roger A. Geddes _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. GTE Construction, LLC, dba A2Z Cabinets and Floors (Respondent), is the holder of License Numbers 271695 and 272093 issued by the Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). 2. On or about September 2, 2019, Sree Antari (Complainant) filed a Complaint against Respondent with the Registrar alleging abandonment and poor work in connection with the installation of cabinets and remodeling at a residence in Phoenix, Arizona. 3. After an inspection performed by the Registrar on October 4, 2019, the Registrar issued a Directive, dated October 16, 2019, requiring Respondent to correct various alleged deficiencies in Respondent’s work by November 4, 2019, as follows: 1. Complaint Item 1: Kitchen cabinets were installed crooked and then fixed the wall to align with the slanting cabinets. Poor workmanship throughout.

RECEIVED 2.4.2020 ROC LEGAL

Cabinets are correct. Correct drywall bull nose corner at end of cabinets facing the living room to match existing drywall finish and texture and repaint.

2. Complaint Item 2: Laundry room cabinet has a large scratch; shelves need to be 15 inches deep but the shelves are only 12 inched deep. Poor workmanship throughout. Correct door with scratch or mark, adjust doors for function (so they do not rub on wall) and add correct shelves for 15-inch-deep cabinets. 3. Complaint Item 3: Big gaps between cabinet face frame and cabinet, bottom doors do not have the wire mesh installed as per contract. Poor workmanship throughout. Correct gaps between cabinet face frame and drywall above fireplace. Correct all nail holes in cabinetry. Complete mesh in lower doors per contract. 4. Complaint Item 4: Kitchen backsplash is incomplete. Complete backsplash above stove under micro wave. 5. Complaint Item 5: Loose recessed light fixtures in the master

bedroom and living room. Poor workmanship.

Correct loose recessed lights and verify light trim covers opening

correctly. 6. Complaint Item 6: All exhaust fans need to be replaced as per contract. Complete customer provided exhaust fans per contract. 7. Complaint Item 7: Big gaps and holes where pony wall meets the granite. Pony wall wasn’t structurally reinforced after the tear down, all plumbing and electric wires aren’t secure either.

2 RECEIVED 2.4.2020 ROC LEGAL

Correct drywall gaps at bottom of granite top locations under overhang at pony wall. 8. Complaint Item 8: Pony wall area needs to be patched up and textured, medicine cabinet wall joints need to be repaired. Correct all areas of damaged drywall, texture and repaint. 9. Complaint Item 9: 12 x 24 Shampoo niche wasn’t installed per the contract terms in master and guest shower area. Poor workmanship throughout. Used chipped tiles and substandard grout work. Correct both shampoo niches to correct size per contract. At master shower location correct chipped tiles, poorly installed or missing grout, red guard that is exposed and metal trim to wall gap. At guest shower location correct lippage at curb (tile to metal trim), poorly installed grout in corners, gaps at exterior metal trim to wall and poorly cut tiles around shampoo

niche.

10. Complaint Item 10: Flooring, poor workmanship. Grout is

substandard. Didn’t grout to the wall so gaps everywhere.

Correct missing floor tile grout. 11. Complaint Item 11: Kitchen, the sink got scratched in several areas due to not following proper care to protect the sink during construction work. Correct scratched sink. 12. Complaint Item 12: Replace scratched master shower door. Correct scratched shower door. 13. Complaint Item 15: Fix dents, paint touchup throughout the home. Correct all damaged areas due to construction work at drywall as stated in # 8 above and repaint repaired locations.

3 RECEIVED 2.4.2020 ROC LEGAL

4. After the Registrar was informed by Complainant that corrective work had not been performed, the Registrar then issued a Citation to Respondent, dated November 7, 2019, for the alleged violation of the following: a. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) (violation of Arizona Administrative Code Rule 4-9-108 for failure to meet minimum workmanship standards); b. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8) (failure in a material respect to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract): c. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) (failure to perform corrective action without valid justification). 5. The Registrar referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing.

6. The Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing setting a hearing for January 15,

2020, at 8:30 A.M. The Registrar mailed a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Respondent

on or about December 23, 2019, at its address of record.

7. A hearing was held on January 15, 2019, at 8:30 A.M. Complainant Sree Antari testified on her own behalf. Jack Grimm of the Registrar appeared and testified. The Tribunal received and admitted Complainant’s exhibit letters A - K.1 8. Although the commencement of the hearing was delayed approximately minutes, Respondent did not appear at any time during the hearing through an authorized officer, employee, attorney, or any other person. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license. Respondent further did not request to appear telephonically and did not request that the hearing be continued. 9. Jack Grim on behalf of the Registrar testified as to his communications with Complainant and Respondent, his inspection of the job site, and the Directive The Tribunal also took administrative notice of the Registrar’s document submissions to the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings. 4 RECEIVED 2.4.2020 ROC LEGAL

issued by the Registrar as a result of his observations from his inspection. Specifically, he testified as to each of the items of the Directive and to Respondent’s failure to complete the project. 10. Sree Antari, Complainant, testified that Respondent never contacted her before the Directive expiration date of November 4, 2019, about performing corrective work. She stated he removed cabinets and never returned with them. She stated further that she had raised concerns that Respondent was not licensed to perform electrical work. 11. Pursuant to Arizona Administrative Code Rule 4-9-117, administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. On February 3, 2020, Respondent’s License No. 271695 was revoked and License No. 272093 was voluntarily cancelled. The administratively revocation status and voluntary cancellation of Respondent’s licenses and Respondent’s failure to appear at the hearing are

considered as factors in aggravation of any determination of discipline.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The copies of the Notice of Hearing that the Registrar mailed to

Respondent at its address of record was reasonable and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.4 and 41-1092.05(D). 2. The revocation and voluntary cancellation of Respondent’s licenses do not deprive Complainant of her right to prosecute her complaint against Respondent or prevent the Registrar from determining the merits of Complainant’s complaint. See A.R.S. § 32-1154(C) (“The expiration, cancellation, suspension or revocation of a license . . . shall not deprive the registrar of jurisdiction to proceed with any investigation of or action or disciplinary proceeding against such license, or to render a decision suspending or revoking such a license . . .”). 3. The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these

5 RECEIVED 2.4.2020 ROC LEGAL

matters is by preponderance of the evidence. See Arizona Administrative Code Rule 2- 19-119. 4. To warrant such sanctions by the Registrar, Complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated the statutory section cited. Proof by a “preponderance” means that “the evidence is sufficient to persuade the finder of fact that the proposition is more likely true than not.” In re: Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP (Ariz.) 1994). See also Culpepper v. State of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (App. 1996). It is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1182 (Rev. 6th ed. 1990). 5. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A) provides that: The holder of a license or any person listed on a license pursuant to this

chapter shall not commit any of the following acts or omissions: … 3. Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar. … 8. Failure in a material respect by the licensee to complete a construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract, or in any modification of the contract. … 22. Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply

with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this

chapter without valid justification within a reasonable

period of time after receiving a written directive from the registrar…. 6. As it relates to such grounds under A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) concerning a violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar, Arizona Administrative Code Rule 4-9- 6 RECEIVED 2.4.2020 ROC LEGAL

108(A), provides that “[a] contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.” 7. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3). Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s contractor’s licenses under A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(3) for Respondent’s failure to perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner. No evidence was presented to rebut Complainant’s evidence of faulty workmanship. 8. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8). Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-for the price stated in the contract. No evidence was presented to rebut Complainants’ evidence that Respondent did not complete the contract for the price paid. 9. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish cause to discipline Respondent’s contractor’s license under A.R.S. § 32-

1154(A)(22). No evidence was presented to support a finding of a valid justification

for Respondent failing to take appropriate corrective action.

10. Complainant has established that Respondent’s licenses should be

disciplined for a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(8), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22). RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of this Order, GTE Construction, LLC’s, License Numbers 271695 and 272093 are revoked. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E), Respondent must pay to the Registrar, a civil penalty of $500.00 in certified funds on or before 30 days from the effective date of this Order. Payment may be hand-delivered to the Registrar’s physical address or mailed to:

Registrar of Contractors P.O. Box 6748

7 RECEIVED 2.4.2020 ROC LEGAL

Phoenix, Arizona 85505-6748

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of the outstanding prior civil penalty. In the event of certification of this Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be

five days from the date of the certification.

Done this day, February 4, 2020.

/s/ Roger Geddes Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors

8