ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-13011-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-07-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Cynthia Palumbo,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
A & D Landscape Install And Design LLC
License No. ROC 330549,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-13011-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 14, 2025.
APPEARANCES:
For Complainant: Cynthia Palumbo.
For Respondent: Dominic Carstensen.
For the Registrar of Contractors: Aaron King.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Samuel Fox
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative notice was taken of the Notice of Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors. Complainant’s Exhibits.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
A & D Landscape Install And Design LLC (Respondent) was the holder of License No. 330549 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar) on September 8, 2020.
On or about July 22, 2024, Cynthia Palumbo (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, exterior hardscaping.
On or about November 24, 2024, Complainant filed a Licensed Complaint Form with the Registrar, claiming poor work.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Aaron King, who conducted a jobsite inspection, and Respondent was present.
Following the inspection, Investigator King issued a Written Directive From the Registrar to Respondent on January 29, 2025, requiring Respondent to correct the Directive items by appropriate means, including the cement splatter, coloration, and cracking.
On April 17, 2025, Investigator King conducted a Compliance Inspection; he found that Respondent had corrected the cracking, but all other items were deemed not completed.
On April 25, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, finding cause to charge Respondent with violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), specifically R4-9-108(A), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
Respondent submitted an Answer to the Citation on May 9, 2025.
On May 29, 2025, the Registrar issued a Notice of Hearing on Contested Case before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At the hearing, Investigator King testified in support of his findings. He testified that Respondent removed the splatter from the block wall, leaving staining.
Complainant also testified in support of Investigator King’s findings.
Respondent’s witnesses testified that he agreed with the directive items but no one told him how to fix it. He believed he should have gotten more guidance from the Registrar on how to appropriately correct the defective items. He testified that Respondent put a lot of time, effort, and money into correcting the concrete.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on July 22, 2025. According to that record, Respondent’s License No. 330549 was Active; there was one open complaint and one resolved/settled complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent bears the burden of proof to establish an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
Contractors are expected to know how to perform their work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Accordingly, contractors should know how to correct deficient work by appropriate means. The Registrar is not obligated to provide instructions on how to appropriately correct deficient work. Respondent’s argument that he did not know how to correct the Directive items, such as “splatter along inside and exterior portions of the [grill] framing” was not persuasive.
In correcting work pursuant to a Written Directive From the Registrar, a contractor cannot damage property or create additional workmanship issues. Any damage or new deficiencies in workmanship must be fixed before the directive period ends.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent failed to perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The preponderance of the evidence established that although Respondent performed a significant amount of work, Respondent failed correct the issues identified in the written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22), except for the cracks in the concrete which were corrected.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend for one day Respondent’s License No. 330549.
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 22, 2025.
/s/ Samuel Fox
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Cynthia Palumbo
[email redacted]
A & D Landscape Install And Design LLC
[email redacted]
Aaron King
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff