PL H



Dept. of Consumer Affairs v. Jaswinder S. Multani and Multani Contracting

CITY OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

| |DECISION AND ORDER |

|DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, | |

| |Violation Nos.: LL 75297 |

|Complainant, |LL 75298 |

| | |

|-against- |License Nos.: 920768 (HIC) |

| |920769 (HIS) |

|JASWINDER S. MULTANI and | |

|MUltani contracting, |Respondent’s Address: |

| |90-30 148th St. |

|Respondent. |Jamaica, NY 11435 |

| | |

| |Date: February 7, 2005 |

| | |

A hearing on the above matter was held on December 1, 2004 and January 5, 2005.[1]

Appearances: For the Department: Elina Kotlyar, Licensing Division. For the Respondent: Jaswinder Multani.

The respondent is charged with violating the following:

1) NYC Administrative Code Section 20-101, failing to maintain standards of honesty, integrity and fair dealing.

Based on the evidence in this case, I RECOMMEND the following:

Findings of Fact

On November 16, 1998, Jaswinder Multani answered “no” to the questions “Have you or any individual whose name is on this application ever been convicted of a crime, offense or violation against the law?” and “Have you or any individual whose name is on this application have any charges of any type currently pending against them?” on home improvement contracting and home improvement salesman license applications.

Mr. Multani was arrested on November 9, 1998 and charged with Grand Larceny-3, a class D felony, and Vehicle ID No. Removed from Motor Vehicle, a class E felony. No disposition was reported.

The Department wrote to Mr. Multani on July 1, 1999 and November 1, 1999, requesting him to submit a disposition regarding his arrest. He did not respond.

The Criminal Court of the City of New York subsequently reported that the arrest number corresponding to Mr. Multani’s November 9, 1998 arrest was identified as an “undocketed arrest” and that the District Attorney declined prosecution.

Opinion

The Department did not meet its burden of proving charge # 1 by a preponderance of the credible evidence. The Notices of Hearing charge the respondents with failing to possess good moral character because of Mr. Multani’s arrest on November 9, 1998 and his failure to disclose to the Department the disposition of this arrest so that the Department could determine whether the questions on the applications were answered truthfully or falsely.

However, the Department failed to prove that Mr. Multani committed the crimes charged, or even that the crimes were actually charged, inasmuch as the Brooklyn Criminal Court identified Mr. Multani’s arrest as “undocketed.”

Further, I found Mr. Multani’s assertion that he never received the Department’s letters requesting the disposition, and that he would have responded if he’d received them, to be believable.

Order

The respondents are found not guilty of charge # 1, and this charge is DISMISSED.

This constitutes the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge.

__________________________

Judith Gould

Administrative Law Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge is approved.

___________________________

Nancy J. Schindler

Deputy Director of Adjudication

cc: Licensing Division

Legal Division

-----------------------

[1] These matters were rescinded and remanded for a new hearing after Mr. Multani appealed a decision dated October 20, 2000, which found both respondents guilty, following an inquest.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download