ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-07436-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-05-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Nathaniel Trisler,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Greco Roman Construction & Design, LLC

License No. ROC 212218,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-07436-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 21, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Nathaniel Trisler appeared on his own behalf. George Drakatos appeared on behalf of Respondent Greco Roman Construction & Design, LLC, with Walter Montante. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Steven Avila appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record; Complainant Nathaniel Trisler’s Exhibits 1, 4, 6, and 13

FINDINGS OF FACT

Greco Roman Construction & Design, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 212218 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). George Anthony Drakatos is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and sole Officer.

On or about October 12, 2024, Nathaniel Trisler (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent for Respondent to install windows and doors at his home. The contract price was $23,500.00. Complainant has paid Respondent in full.

On or about August 4, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging abandonment and poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Steven Avila. After a September 3, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, Investigator Avila issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated September 26, 2025, that provided 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 Friday, October 17, 2025.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - Front door has abnormal gap difference from top and

bottom along door frame. Issues closing correctly

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the door frame

did have a measurable difference in the gap on the left side of the frame as measured to the door. Measurements taken at above the lower hinge showed a gap of 3/16 of an inch with the gap shrinking at the bottom left corner of the door. The measurement taken above the top hinge measured at over a quarter of an inch. Bottom left corner of the door was less than a 1/8 in gap.

Workmanship standards state - Door casing, window trim and brick mold

should fit, be square and securely attached.

Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 2 - front security gate has issues locking and latching after last repair attempt on front door

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there front

security door locking mechanism required additional force for the completion of latching. This action would stop at the frame of the security and then with additional force engage fully. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 4 - rear sliding glass door sealant is cracking and peeling from door frame.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection separation

between the frame of the sliding glass door and the sealant were visible in

multiple areas. Cracks could be seen within the sealant application and voids and peeling were present. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 5 - all 6 windows sealant is cracking and peeling from

window frames. Owner tried covering up issues with paint.

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection all windows were inspection and multiple location around the frames contained signs of separation from the sealant material. Paint was also noted as failing to adhere to sealant in multiple locations. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Respondent should diligently inspect the sealant in all exterior applications and appropriately remedy.

Complaint Item: 6 - all windows and rear sliding glass door has paint on

faces/frames. Paint sprayed to the face of window frame

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection paint could be

seen on multiple window frames. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall

correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 7 - window drains have paint sprayed inside from when

trying to cover sealant issues up with paint

Investigator’s Observation: Multiple windows had paint within the weep

holes of the window frames at the time of the inspection. Allegation is verified.

Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Complaint Item: 9 - sealant used on the exterior of the windows was also

applied on the interior, and in several spots has same issues

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection there were similar issues with the caulk on the interior of the home consistent with the separation between the window frames and sealant application. With the use of the investigators business card it was noted that the separation was not just superficial at the card slid well within the gap. Allegation is verified.

Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Complaint Item: 3 - laundry exterior door has sunlight showing threw seals and gets worse with hot weather. Issues latching

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection the laundry

exterior door was tested for function. Latching of the exterior door felt normal and was tested multiple times and latched with normal use. The weather stripping on the exterior door was visibly inspected and appeared to seal at the time of the inspection. No evidence to support light shining through was gathered at the time of the inspection. Allegation is not verified.

Complaint Item: 8 - all windows have excessive scratching from past repair attempts. White shown threw black windows in spots

Investigator’s Observation: At the time of the inspection some scratches

could be seen on the exterior side of the window frames. Given the timeframe between the installation of the windows and the inspection date being approximately nine months there is insufficient evidence to determine the scratches to be due to the respondent's workmanship allegation is not verified.

Complaint Item: 10 - Sealant poorly applied—voids not filled, shrinking,

peeling, and core issues remain unresolved.

Investigator’s Observation: Allegation is an overview of previous

allegations.

On October 10, 2025, Investigator Avila issued an Amended Written Directive that was identical to the initial Written Directive, with the exception of extending the compliance deadline to October 30, 2025, because Respondent requested an extension due to weather conditions.

After the October 30, 2025 deadline for compliance with the Written Directive, Complainant requested that Investigator Avila perform a Compliance Jobsite Inspection.

On December 10, 2025, Investigator Avila performed a Compliance Jobsite Inspection. Investigator Avila’s Compliance Notes state the following:

It was stated that corrections were attempted prior to the compliance inspection in regards to the issues with adhesion of the sealant around the windows.

Compliance Findings:

Complaint Item: 1 - Front door has abnormal gap difference from top and bottom along door frame. Issues closing correctly

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the time of the inspection the door frame did have a measurable difference in the gap on the left side of the frame as measured to the door. Measurements taken at above the lower hinge showed a gap of 3/16 of an inch with the gap shrinking at the bottom left corner of the door. The measurement taken above the top hinge measured at over a quarter of an inch. Bottom left corner of the door was less than a 1/8 in gap. Workmanship standards state - Door casing, window trim and brick mold should fit, be square and securely attached.

Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the compliance inspection adjustments had been made to the front door. The gap to the left of the door was no longer excessive and the door was functioning properly at the time of the compliance inspection. This line item deemed corrected.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 2 - front security gate has issues locking and latching after last repair attempt on front door

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the time of the inspection there front security door locking mechanism required additional force for the completion of latching. This action would stop at the frame of the security and then with additional force engage fully. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the inspection the security gate was functioning properly. Item deemed corrected.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 4 - rear sliding glass door sealant is cracking and peeling from door frame.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the time of the inspection separation between the frame of the sliding glass door and the sealant were visible in multiple areas. Cracks could be seen within the sealant application and voids and peeling were present. Allegation is verified.

Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the compliance inspection the rear sliding door still had areas of separation between the caulk installation and the door frame. The corner of a business card could fit between caulk and frame similarly to the condition and the jobsite inspection. There was also a large open void at the base of the door where not sealant was present to avoid entry of moisture and pests. This item is deemed not corrected.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 5 - all 6 windows sealant is cracking and peeling from window frames. Owner tried covering up issues with paint.

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the time of the inspection all windows were inspection and multiple location around the frames contained signs of separation from the sealant material. Paint was also noted as failing to adhere to sealant in multiple locations. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means. Respondent should diligently inspect the sealant in all exterior applications and appropriately remedy.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the inspection there were multiple areas within the exterior side of the window installation in which it appeared as though adhesion had failed. This was tested in multiple areas in which the investigators business cards could be slid into the voids, in some instances the enter card could slide into the voids. There were also additional instances in which the exterior caulk had open voids in the caulk installation as opposed to a smooth finish. Exterior Sealant also had bubbling present on many frames which appeared to have trapped air and was extremely soft to the touch. This line item is deemed not corrected.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 6 - all windows and rear sliding glass door has paint on faces/frames. Paint sprayed to the face of window frame

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the time of the inspection paint could be seen on multiple window frames. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the compliance inspection the window frames which contained paint on them appeared to have been cleaned. Item corrected.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 7 - window drains have paint sprayed inside from when trying to cover sealant issues up with paint

Investigator’s Initial Observation: Multiple windows had paint withing the weep holes of the window frames at the time of the inspection. Allegation is verified. Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: Paint appeared to have been cleaned up at the time of the compliance inspection. Item corrected.

☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 9 - sealant used on the exterior of the windows was also applied on the interior, and in several spots has same issues

Investigator’s Initial Observation: At the time of the inspection there were similar issues with the caulk on the interior of the home consistent with the separation between the window frames and sealant application. With the use of the investigators business card it was noted that the separation was not just superficial at the card slid well within the gap. Allegation is verified.

Respondent shall correct by the appropriate means.

Compliance Observation: At the time of the inspection there were multiple areas within the interior caulk installation in which the caulk adhesion appears to have failed and separated from the window frame. There were also locations noted in which the caulk installation on the interior of the home was spread into the window frame corners resulting in a poor finish. This line is deemed not corrected.

☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED

Thereafter, Investigator Avila forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. 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(a), and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

Investigator Avila testified consistently with the findings contained in the Written Directives and Compliance Notes. Investigator Avila testified that all of the remaining issues arise from a failure of the sealant resulting in a separation of the sealant from the window and door frames.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Avila’s testimony. During his testimony, Complainant referenced manufacturer installation specifications. Complainant testified that the windows and rear sliding glass door “are the wrong style for the house” and that the underlying issue has to do with the way in which Respondent performed the installation. Complainant asserted that the sealant is not the only issue, but rather, there is a framing issue because the manufacturer specifications for installation were not followed, and a “retrofit fin style should have been installed.” Complainant contended that there has been a pattern of failed repairs.

George Drakatos testified on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Drakatos testified that Respondent has installed thousands of windows in the same manner as Complainant’s windows were installed, which is the most cost-effective way, and the way that Complainant chose to have the windows installed. Mr. Drakatos asserted that had Complainant chosen a different installation method, such as a stucco cut-back installation, the cost would have been significantly higher.

Mr. Drakatos testified that Complainant chose black windows and doors with black caulk, that are in the direct sunlight which could impact the sealant.

Mr. Drakatos asserted that Respondent has attempted to remedy the deficiencies and is still willing to remedy any remaining deficiencies.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on April 24, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 212218 was first issued on October 9, 2005, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

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. “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence established that portions of Respondent’s work were not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project 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 evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. Further, Respondent failed to establish any affirmative defense to establish valid justification for such failure. 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 Number 212218 for a period of three (3) days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $300.00 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 (30) 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.

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, May 4, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Nathaniel Trisler

[email redacted]

Greco Roman Construction & Design, LLC

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Steven Avila

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff