Complainant, Respondent. A hearing on the above-captioned matter was held on April 23, 2013.

Transcription

1 CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, -against- Complainant, KUDOS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondent. DECISION AND ORDER Violation No.: LL License No.: (HIC) Respondent s Address: 22 West 23 rd Street Suite 4FL New York, NY A hearing on the above-captioned matter was held on April 23, Appearances: For the Department: Allison Johnson, Esq. For the Respondent: Edward Kratt, Esq.; Hyun Chul Choi, corporate officer (President); Minkyu John Park, corporate officer (Vice President); John Valverde, witness and Associate Executive Director of the Osborne Association. The Amended Notice of Hearing charged the respondent with violating: 1) New York City Administrative Code ( Administrative Code ) for failing to maintain standards of integrity, honesty and fair dealing. Based on the evidence in this case, I RECOMMEND the following: Findings of Fact: On June 10, 2011, the Department issued Kudo s Construction Corporation a home improvement contractor license (number ) which expires on June 30, On June 29, 2011, the respondent s president, Mr. Choi ( Choi ), and vice-president, Mr. Park ( Park ), pled guilty to violating New York State Tax Law 1804 (criminal tax fraud in the third degree, a class D felony) and Administrative Code (City Criminal tax fraud in the fourth degree, a class E felony). On August 22, 2012 Choi s renewal application for a home improvement salesperson license (no ) was denied. On June 6, 2012 Park s renewal application for a home improvement salesperson license (no ) was denied.

2 Page 2 of 5 Opinion The Department established the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. It is uncontested that both Choi and Park were found guilty of violating New York State Tax Law 1804 (criminal tax fraud in the third degree, a class D felony) and Administrative Code (city criminal tax fraud in the fourth degree, a class E felony). Choi and Park are required to maintain the standards of integrity, honesty and fair dealing required to hold a license under Administrative Code Pursuant to Administrative Code (a)(3)(b), [t]he Commissioner shall have the power to revoke a license [if] [t]he person or the management personnel of the contractor are untrustworthy or not of good character. It is determined that Choi and Park s actions constitute a violation of Administrative Code Choi and Park both claim a presumption of rehabilitation pursuant to Correction Law 752 because they were granted certificates of relief from civil disabilities. (see Respondent s B & C). In addition, Choi and Park claim that they have rehabilitated themselves through community service which they either performed voluntarily or in conjunction with their sentence for the aforementioned charges. Further, they claim that they have never defrauded any consumer nor had any consumer-related complaints lodged against them and offer as evidence personal references from friends and former clients. 1 Accordingly, they claim that the offenses should not be used as evidence of lack of fitness to hold a license because there is no direct link between the crimes and the issuance of their license. In considering all factors delineated in Correction Law 753(1), it is determined that there is an unreasonable risk to the safety or welfare of the public and that the direct relationship between the crimes committed and the license is not sufficiently attenuated. Matter of Bonacorsa v. Van Lindt, 71 N.Y.2d 605, 523 N.E.2d 806, 528 N.Y.S2d 519. Choi and Park were of sufficient age, maturity and educational backgrounds to exercise better judgment than by paying employees off the books to evade payment of over $1 million in taxes. Choi and Park were convicted of serious felonies and served a sentence consisting of both jail time and community service. Their excuse that the practice of paying employees off the books is prevalent in the construction industry is another poor indicator of integrity and character and further exemplifies the direct relationship between the crimes committed and the issuance of their license. To be a licensee of The Department of Consumer Affairs is a privilege and not a right. It instills in the licensee a tremendous 1 Respondent s post-hearing submissions received on April 25, 2013 have been considered in this determination.

3 Page 3 of 5 amount of confidence and trust not only by the Department but by the public at large. A consumer in need of home improvement work is far more vulnerable to deception than a taxing authority such as the State of New York yet respondent argues that it has drawn the line between not defrauding the consumer and defrauding the government. It is not credible that deceit and avarice know those distinctions. Furthermore, although Choi and Park claim that all their employees are now paid on the books and are properly documented, they offer no corroborating evidence establishing compliance. Order Based on the above, the charge shall be sustained. The respondent is found guilty of the charge set forth in the Amended Notice of Hearing. The respondent s license (number ) is REVOKED effective immediately. The respondent is directed to surrender the license document immediately in person or by mail to DCA s Licensing Center which is located at 42 Broadway, New York, NY If the respondent operates while the license is revoked, the respondent will be subject to criminal prosecution and/or civil penalties of at least $100 per day for each and every day of unlicensed activity, as well as the closing of the respondent s business and/or the removal of items sold, offered for sale, or utilized in the operation of such business, pursuant to Administrative Code Sections and (the Padlock Law ). It is further declared that the respondent is deemed unfit to hold any license issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs. This constitutes the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge. N. Tumelty Administrative Law Judge

4 Page 4 of 5 DECISION AND ORDER The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge is approved. This constitutes an Order of the Department. Failure to comply with this Order within thirty (30) days may result in the suspension of any other Department of Consumer Affairs license held by the respondent. Date: 6 May 2013 James M. Plotkin Deputy Director of Adjudication cc: Allison Johnson, Esq. (Licensing Attorney) Legal Division Edward M. Kratt, Esq. 100 Lafayette Street Suite 303A New York, NY edkratt@aol.com Mr. Minkyu Park and Mr. Hyun Chul Choi Johnpark@kudosconstruction.com

5 Page 5 of 5 APPEAL INFORMATION You have 30 days to file an APPEAL of this decision. You must include with your appeal all of the following: (1) a check or money order payable to DCA for the sum of $25; and (2) a check or money order payable to DCA for the amount of the fine imposed by the decision, or an application for a waiver of the requirement to pay the fine as a requisite for an appeal, based upon financial hardship. The application must be supported by evidence of financial hardship, including the most recent tax returns you have filed. BY Send your appeal to myappeal@dca.nyc.gov and, at the same time, mail the $25 appeal fee to: DCA Administrative Tribunal, 66 John Street, 11 th Floor, New York, NY (Make sure to write the violation number(s) on your check or money order.) You may pay the fine online at or mail a check or money order to: DCA, Collections Division, 42 Broadway, NY, NY BY REGULAR MAIL: Mail your appeal and the appeal fee to: Director of Adjudication, Department of Consumer Affairs, 66 John Street, 11 th Floor, New York, NY You must also mail a copy of your appeal to: DCA, Legal Division, 42 Broadway, 9 th Floor, New York, NY Make sure to include in your appeal some indication or proof that you have sent a copy of the appeal to DCA s Legal Division. You may pay the fine online at or mail a check or money order to: DCA, Collections Division, 42 Broadway, NY, NY