STATE OF NEW YORK - New York State Department of State
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
----------------------------------------X
In the Matter of the Complaint of
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION OF LICENSING SERVICES,
Complainant, DECISION
-against-
RALPH J. PERFETTO
Private Investigator
dba GRAY FOX INVESTIGATIONS, CORP.
unlicensed
Respondent.
----------------------------------------X
The above noted matter came on for hearing before the undersigned, Ziedah F. Giovanni, on January 24, 2012 at the office of the Department of State located at 123 William Street, New York, New York.
The Division of Licensing Services (hereinafter "DLS") was represented by Linda Cleary, Esq.
The respondent, having been advised of his right to be represented, chose to represent himself.
COMPLAINT
The complaint charges that the facts and circumstances of the respondent’s conviction, and his operation of a private investigation business under an unlicensed name, are evidence that he does not have requisite trustworthiness, competence and good moral character for licensure as a private investigator.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) At all relevant times herein, the respondent has been licensed as a private investigator, under his individual name, Ralph, J. Perfetto. He was initially licensed June 19, 2006. His current license term expires June 18, 2012 (State’s Ex. 2).
2) Gray Fox Investigations Corp has been incorporated since August 1, 2008. It is not now, nor has it ever been, licensed as a Private Investigator or Watch Guard or Patrol Agency (State’s Ex. 2)
3) Over ten years ago, the respondent was the Director of Cemeteries at the Department of State. His duties were unrelated to the facts and circumstances of this case, and he did not, during his employment at the Department of State, work with the complainant.
4) At all times relevant to this proceeding, the respondent was not duly licensed and admitted to practice law within the State of New York.
5) On May 26, 2011, the respondent was convicted, by a jury, in Kings County Criminal Court of a misdemeanor violation of Judiciary Law 478, practicing or appearing as Attorney-at –Law without being admitted and registered. On July 18, 2011, he was sentenced to one year conditional discharge, 70 hours of community service, and required to pay a $1000.00 fine. The conditional discharge was terminated early, on January 6, 2012. The respondent paid his fine and completed community service. He has been awarded a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities (State’s Ex. 9).
6) On August 21, 2008, in the Criminal Court of the City of New York Kings County, the respondent attended his cousin’s arraignment. He came to the court with affidavits that had been obtained by him in an effort to help his cousin. The cousin’s father asked the respondent for help because he knew the respondent was an investigator. The respondent did not charge a fee to help, and personally obtained affidavits from two individuals.
7) At the hearing, when the case was called, the respondent stood with his cousin, addressed the judge from the area in front of the judge’s bench, and handed documents to the court officer. The judge addressed the respondent as “counselor,” and the respondent did not correct him. The respondent submitted a business card that stated, “Ralph Perfetto, Private Investigator.” He also submitted a Notice of Appearance on which he printed “RALPH PERFETTO P.I.” next to the word “ATTORNEY,” (emphasis not added) and above the words, “Print Attorney’s Name.” He signed his first and last name above the line designated for signature, to the right of his printed name (State’s Ex. 9, #9). He submitted two witness affidavits and, on the record, waived this cousin’s right to a formal reading of the rights and charges pending against him.
8) The respondent testified that he did not intentionally hold himself out to be an attorney. He said had had not known the purpose of the Notice of Appearance, and had “stupidly” and “hastily” filled it out and signed it without reading it. He testified that he should have scratched out the word “attorney” and written out the word “private investigator” on the Notice of Appearance. He testified he believed the judge knew he was a private investigator since he had handed the court officer his business card that indicated that fact, and the card had been placed on the side of the judge’s bench. He also testified that he believed his formal dress influenced the perception of people that he was an attorney.
9) While holding a private investigator license in his own name, the respondent used letterhead that states, “Gray Fox Investigations Corp. We Put the Pieces Together.” He corresponded to the Department of State under that letterhead as recently as June 21, 2011 (State’s Ex. 9, #3). He also used checks that indicated, “GRAY FOX INVESTIGATIONS CORP. (MAIN ACCOUNT)” (State’s Ex. 9, #3). His business card indicated his personal name, and did not include the name Gray Fox Investigations Corp. He also filed his taxes under his personal name. At some point after correspondence with DLS, the respondent corrected the name on the letterhead and checks.
10) The respondent testified that he used the name Gray Fox Investigations Corp. because his son and grandson shared his name, and he wanted to protect them from association with his business, particularly because of the nature of the business. He testified he consulted with an attorney friend who advised him he should incorporate the business under Gray Fox, and continue to file taxes in his personal name. The respondent testified he attempted to pay for two separate licenses under his personal name and the business name in an effort to comply with the law. He testified he wanted to comply but had not been given clear instructions in his correspondence with the Department of State.
11) As of the date of the hearing, “,” the respondent’s website, was operational. Displayed on the home page in the upper left corner were the words, “Ralph Perfetto, Private Investigator.” That same page also stated, “RALPH PERFETTO, Private Investigator A company comprised of a handpicked team of dedicated agents who treat each case as their top priority.” The respondent testified he believed his website had been modified to comply with instruction given by a Department of State investigator who initially informed him the site improperly advertised an unlicensed business name. He stated he had not personally checked the site and verified the changes had been made.
12) The applicant submitted numerous documents detailing his professional and civic contributions, as well as his honors and awards from the 1960’s to the present (State’s Ex 9, #6). He argued his moral character was further established by the award he received the day before the hearing, honoring 20 years of service on the South Beach Psychiatric Center Board of Visitors.
OPINION AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
I- General Business Law §70, outlaws unlicensed activity. Under §72, a license as a private investigator is issued in response to an application that must contain specific information, including the name under which the business is to be conducted. A corollary is that the license is issued in a particular name, and it is unlawful for a licensed private investigator to conduct business under any name other than the name that appears on the license. Otherwise, the business would be conducted on behalf of an unlicensed entity, a violation of General Business Law, §70. General Business Law, §§70 and 72 were enacted for the well-being and for the convenience of the public-at-large, and to prevent unlawful activity, fraud or confusion.
II- While holding a private investigator license in his own name the respondent operated and conducted licensed activity under the unlicensed name “Gray Fox Investigations Corp.” Mr. Perfetto is not new to the private investigator business; he has been a licensed investigator since 2006. While his misconduct appears to have been unintentional, it is his responsibility—as it is the responsibility of every licensee of the Department of State-- to know the applicable laws and regulations, and abide by them. While it appears at some point Mr. Perfetto corrected violations, for years he disregarded the requirement that licensed activity must be conducted under a licensed name. His through his noncompliance, he exhibited incompetence.
III- While Mr. Perfetto asserts he did not intend his courtroom misconduct, his commission of those acts highlights, once again, an inability to identify—and conduct himself within—professional limitations. Furthermore, there is a direct relationship between his crime and the business of private investigation, which includes, among other things, “the securing of evidence to be used before any authorized investigating committee, board of award, board of arbitration, or in the trial of civil or criminal cases.” In fact, Mr. Perfetto was asked by his cousin’s father to help out with the criminal case precisely because he knew Mr. Perfetto was an investigator. The acts underlying Mr. Perfetto’s misdemeanor conviction are further evidence of his incompetence, and, most notably, involve another act of misrepresentation related to professional licensure.
IV- At the hearing the complainant argued that was still operational and was evidence of continuing misconduct. However, prominent information on website advertised the business as Ralph Perfetto, P.I. The evidence was not sufficient to establish that utilizing , in the context of the other information on the site, constituted the operation of the business under a name other than the licensed name. While the complaint also alleges the respondent failed to cooperate with an investigation of the Department of State, that charge is not supported by substantial evidence, and must be dismissed.
V- The respondent argued that his life’s work is clear evidence of his good moral character. However, it is not my job to weigh his entire lifetime of good and bad deeds in some general context. I am charged with determining whether Mr. Perfetto committed the conduct alleged, and if so, whether the surrounding circumstances illustrate he is unqualified, presently, to hold a private investigator license in the State of New York; I do not rule on whether he is qualified to perform any number of other duties and services in the State of New York, outside of private investigation.
While a propensity toward advocacy for others is generally a laudable quality, there are boundaries, that when crossed—even in the spirit of zealous advocacy-- transform that advocacy into professional misconduct or even criminal conduct. Taken together, the conviction and professional misconduct amount to a display of carelessness and incompetence that—regardless of intent—rise to a level that disqualifies Mr. Perfetto for licensure as a private investigator.
DETERMINATION
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED THAT Ralph J. Perfetto, UID # 11000125839, violated General Business Law §70. Further, through the circumstances underlying his conviction and professional misconduct, he demonstrated incompetence. According his license shall be revoked, effective immediately. The respondent is directed to send his license, certified mail, to Norma Rosario, Department of State, Division of Licensing Services, One Commerce Plaza, 99 Washington Avenue, 6th Floor, Albany, New York 12231-0001.
[pic]
Ziedah F. Giovanni
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: April 2, 2012
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- ocfs ldss 7024
- project statement of work new york state education
- new york state division of criminal justice services home
- state of new york new york state department of state
- new york state department of state
- office of children and family services home ocfs
- ny license center claiming record s guide
- state of new york
- gov