ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-01977-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-07-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Aimo Green,

COMPLAINANT

European Granite and Remodeling LLC

License No. ROC 300754,

RESPONDENT

No. 2024A-01977-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: July 8, 2024

APPEARANCES: Larry Aimo Green appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet. Marian Bujor appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent European Granite and Remodeling LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Mike Springer appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

European Granite and Remodeling LLC, (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 300754 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about January 20, 2023, Larry Aimo Green (Complainant) agreed to have Respondent construct remodel his kitchen at his home in Vail, Arizona. There was no formal contract entered into but the total cost was to be $12,500.00 and Complainant paid $9,500.00.

On or about February 18, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mike Springer. The jobsite inspection was performed on April 11, 2024.

Investigator Springer then issued a Written Directive on or about April 11, 2024, which provided in pertinent part as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on April 30th, 2024.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Compliance Item: 2 - he took measurements himself and when the granite arrived it was almost 2 in too short on backsplash

Investigator’s Observation: Backsplash does not reach the bottom of the cabinets. Wood framing can be seen behind. At the window, there is a 1 inch difference between the two sides from the window to the backsplash edge.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(c): All work performed by a contractor in a county, city, or town that has not adopted building codes or where any adopted building codes do not contain specific provisions applicable to that aspect of construction work shall be performed in accordance with professional industry standards.

Compliance Item: 3 - the backsplash was not level, so they proceeded to cut into the dry wall and it is still not level

Investigator’s Observation: The existing backsplash drywall was removed, no drywall was reinstalled behind backsplash. This is an industry standard. Drywall is touching wood framing at the sink window and 1/2 " gap between the wood and the backsplash at the far South corner. Backsplash is pushing into wall sheetrock adjacent to it. Backsplash should be removed and drywall installed behind it.

Compliance Item: 4 - receptacles were cut too big and left large gaps

Investigator’s Observation: With receptacle faceplates installed, a gap can be seen at the edge, holes were cut too large.

Compliance Item: 5 - they scratched my cabinets while installing and now they are damaged

Investigator’s Observation: Cabinets near stove are scratched on both sides.

Compliance Item: 6 - drilled holes in the island that were too big

Investigator’s Observation: This piece of countertop has since been replaced. There are no holes cut for receptacles.

Compliance Item: 10 - no written contract,check cashed that listed remaining balance due and he cashed it

Investigator’s Observation: No contract was provided or signed, invoice shown at JSI does not meet minimum elements of contract.

Governing Rule: Failure in any material respect to comply with this chapter; Namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

Compliance Item: 12 - job still incomplete he said he would have cabinet company come lower cabinets to fit his backsplash that was too short Investigator’s Observation: Cabinets have not been lowered at time of

JSI. Complainant states he does not want cabinets to be lowered but rather the backsplash done correctly. There are large gaps around the entire perimeter of the backsplash.

(All errors contained in the original)

On May 8, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(c); A.R.S, § 32-1154(A)(12) namely A.R.S. § 32-1158 and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about May 22, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about May 28, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on July 8, 2024, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.

At hearing, Investigator Springer testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings from his inspections.

Investigator Springer testified that there was no corrective work performed.

Complainant testified on his own behalf and confirmed that to date, no corrective work had been performed, nor had the project been finished.

Further, Complainant testified that it was not until approximately 24 hours before the Directive expired that he heard from Mr. Bujor.

Marian Bujor testified on behalf of Respondent.

Mr. Bujor testified that he initially took his best measurements, but he requested that Complainant’s son-in-law measure so he did not have to drive back to Complainant’s home.

As to the work performed, Mr. Bujor testified that he had come up with ideas to remedy the situation, but that Complainant refused, like offering bigger electrical plate covers.

Mr. Bujor also testified that Complainant still owed him $3,000.00.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on May 17, 2021. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 300754 was first issued on September 14, 2015, and reflected that there were two open cases, one of which was the present case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).

The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work which was completed, was not in conformity with the Registrar’s or professional industry standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(C).

The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the parties did not have a written contract in violation of § 32-1154(A)(12) namely A.R.S. § 32-1158.

The evidence established Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Both Investigator Springer and Complainant testified that no corrective work had been completed, and Mr. Bujor did not dispute the same. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 300754 for a period of five days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).

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 any outstanding prior civil penalty.

It is further recommended that that Respondent provide a sample contract which complies with statute to the Registrar within 30 days. Should Respondent fail to do so, it will result in a prolonged suspension until compliance is achieved.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, July 23, 2024.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Aimo Green

[email redacted]

European Granite and Remodeling LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff