Dept



Dept. of Consumer Affairs et al. v. All Boro Collision Specialist, Inc. and Robert Coppolino

CITY OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

|THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, |DECISION AND ORDER |

|ELVIR AZANLI, DAVID ROLDAN, MEL ROSENKRANZ, MARY MCVICKER, BARBARA BRETT, | |

|VINCENT SPERO. LARAINE VETERE, ROLAND ONOUHA, PHILIP HECKLER, MERYL EPSTEIN,| |

|JACQULINE HART, AND PHILIP DEMATTIA, |Violation No.: LL5084041 |

| | |

|Complainants, | |

| |License No.: 885840 |

|-against- | |

| | |

| |Respondents’ Addresses: |

|all boro collision specialist, inc. and ROBERT COPPOLINO, |All Boro Collision Specialist, Inc. |

| |216-02 Hempstead Avenue |

| |Queens Village, NY 11429 |

|Respondents. | |

| |Robert Coppolino |

| |135 West Tiana Road |

| |Hampton Bay, NY 11946 |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Date: December 21, 2006 |

An inquest on the above-captioned matter was held on October 16, 2006.

Appearances: For the complainants: Karen Miller, Esq. Although duly notified of the time and place of the hearing, the respondents failed to appear.

The respondents are charged, as set forth in the “Consolidated Notice of Hearing” dated August 10, 2005, with violating the following:

1) Failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum when the sole corporate office failed to appear;

2) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(a), by repeatedly and persistently removing vehicles parked on private property without a current valid contract between the owner of the private property and the tow operator;

3) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(c), by repeatedly and persistently removing vehicles from private property without express written authorization by the owner of the private property or its agent as designated in the contract between the owner of the private property and the tow operator (10 counts, i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Rosenkranz, McVicker, Brett, Spero, Vetere, Onuoha, Heckler, Epstein, Hart and Demattia);

4) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(a), by repeatedly and persistently charging for removal of a vehicle from private property that was not parked in a manner inconsistent with posted instructions (6 counts, i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Rosenkranz, McVicker, Vetere, Onuoha, Heckler and Demattia);

5) New York City Administrative Code Section 20-527, by repeatedly and persistently refusing to accept major credit cards from consumers (2 counts i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Roldan and Brett);

6) New York City Administrative Code Sections 19-169.1(a), 19-169.1(g) and/or 20-509(d)(1), by repeatedly and persistently overcharging consumers for towing services, specifically, by demanding from consumers more than one hundred dollars for removal and the first three days of storage and demanding more than $50 for a “drop fee” in cases where the vehicle had been connected to apparatus for removal but had not been removed (7 counts i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Roldan, Rosenkranz, Brett, Spero, Vetere, Onuoha and Hart);

7a) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(g) and (h), by failing to provide the consumers with detailed, signed receipts (2 counts i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Roldan and Brett).;

7b) 6 RCNY Sections 5-32(c)(2), by failing to include separate statements of tax on consumers’ receipts (1 count i.e., for the following consumer complainant: Azanli)

8) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(h), by failing to show the legal name of the person towing consumers’ vehicles on the receipt given to the consumers (8 counts i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Azanli, McVicker, Spero, Vetere, Onuoha, Heckler, Epstein and Hart);

9) Title 6 of the Rules of the City of New York (“6 RCNY”) Section 1-13, by failing to respond in writing to the Department within twenty days of mailing by the Department of a consumer complaint (“repeated” and “persistent” violations) (9 counts, i.e., for the following consumer complainants: Azanli, Roldan, McVicker, Brett, Spero, Vetere, Heckler, Epstein, and Demattia);

10) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(f), by failing to notify the police, within thirty minutes of the towed vehicle’s arrival at the storage facility, of the following information: the location of the storage site, the time the vehicle was removed, location from which the vehicle was removed, the name of the person who authorized the removal, and that the removal was according to a contract with the owner of the private property; and failed to obtain the name of the police precinct to whom such information was reported;

11) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(e), by “staging”, in that it removed vehicles from private property and took them to premises that it did not maintain and/or places that were not secure (“repeated” and “persistent” violations) (2 counts, i.e., for the following consumer complainants: McVicker and Brett);

12) New York City Administrative Code Section 20-101, by repeatedly and persistently failing to maintain standards of honesty, integrity and fair dealing (12 counts, i.e. for the following consumer complainants: Azanli, Roldan, Rosenkranz, McVicker, Brett, Spero, Vetere, Onuoha, Heckler, Epstein, Hart and Demattia); and

13) New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(b) by failing to conspicuously post and maintain upon private property signs stating the name, address, and telephone number of the tow operator, the hours of operation for vehicle redemption, towing and storage fees of the tow operator, and the hours vehicles are prohibited from parking and subject to tow (2 counts, i.e., for the following consumer complainants: McVicker and Demattia).

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

Findings of Fact

The respondent, All Boro Collision Specialist, Inc. (“All Boro”), is licensed by the Department under license no. 885840 as a tow truck company at 216-02 Hempstead Avenue, Queens Village, New York.

Elvir Azanli, CD5-85890, Notice of Hearing (“NOH”), p.3, ¶1: On May 22, 2004, complainant Azanli was involved in a car accident. The police called All Boro. All Boro charged Azanli $80 for the accident tow. The receipt that All Boro issued to Azanli did not include a separate statement of tax or an authorizing signature. All Boro damaged Azanli’s transmission. Azanli attempted to contact All Boro on numerous occasions but All Boro did not respond.

David Roldan, CD5-85353, NOH, p.3, ¶2: On or about April 14, 2004, complainant Roldan had parked his vehicle in a towing zone. The vehicle was towed and brought back to Roldan a few hours later. All Boro charged him $162.00 for the tow. All Boro did not issue Roldan a receipt even tough he requested one. On May 19, 2004, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.

Mel Rosenkranz, CD5-85817, NOH, p.4, ¶3: On March 31, 2004, complainant Rosenkranz and his wife parked in the Dolphin Fitness Center. Rosenkranz purchased an item and performed some business matters at Dolphin, then proceeded to cross the street to the DMV to inform his wife where he was. When Rosenkranz and his wife returned to the parking lot, they found that their car had been towed by All Boro. Rosenkranz was charged $162.50.

Mary McVicker, CD5-84828, NOH, p.4, ¶4: On February 25, 2004, complainant McVicker parked her car in a shopping center’s parking lot located next to the Queens Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) and proceeded to the DMV for approximately two hours. There were no signs posted warning of towing for illegal parking. When McVicker returned to the lot, she found that her car was missing. An agent from All Boro informed her that her car had been towed to 11th Avenue. When McVicker asked how she could retrieve her car, All Boro’s agent told her that he would drive her to the car. When McVicker asked if she could pay with credit card, All Boro told her she could only use a credit card if she lived in Queens Village, where All Boro’s office is located, and that the cost would be $160.00. McVicker opted to pay in cash, and when she returned from the ATM with the money, All Boro had already brought her car back to the parking lot and charged her $167.00 for the tow and return. On April 13, 2004, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.

Barbara Brett, CD5-85145, NOH, p.4, ¶5: On February 23, 2004, complainant Brett parked her car in a private lot. A company called “Tows R Us” towed Brett’s car to the back of the parking lot, but the car never left the lot. The tow company refused to accept a credit card payment, and also did not issue a receipt to Brett. Brett was charged $162.00 in order to retrieve her car. On June 9, 2004, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.

Vincent Spero, CD5-84342, NOH, p.4, ¶6: On December 8, 2003, complainant Spero accidentally parked in the wrong parking lot in a business complex located at 30-50 Whitestone Expressway. When Spero returned to the lot after about five minutes, All Boro had already hooked up his car to their truck. All Boro told Spero that he had to pay $162.00 to have the car released. Spero paid $162.00 in order to disconnect his car from the truck. On March 8, 2004, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.

Laraine Vetere, CD5-81227, NOH, p.4, ¶7: On May 8, 2003, complainant Vetere parked her car in a Kentucky Fried Chicken’s parking lot located at 158-50 Cross Bay Blvd. Vetere stopped by the pharmacy next to the Kentucky Fried Chicken to drop off a prescription. She was in the store for no longer than two minutes. When Vetere returned to purchase her dinner from Kentucky Fried Chicken, she found that All Boro had hooked up her car to their truck. All Boro charged Vetere $108.00 before releasing her car.

Roland Onuoha, CD5-80888, NOH, p.4, ¶8: On March 16, 2003, complainant Onuoha parked in a Rite Aid parking lot located at 245-06 Francis Lewis Blvd. in Queens to purchase some items from the store. When he approached the store, however, Onuoha realized that it was closed. Onuoha then crossed the street to make a purchase from a deli. Within five minutes, Onuoha returned, but All Boro had already attached his car to their truck. Onuoha asked the All Boro driver to drop his car, but All Boro refused. Instead, All Boro told Onuoha that he would charge him $90.00 without a receipt, but if Onuoha wanted a receipt, he would have to pay $100.00 plus tax. Onuoha opted to pay $108.00 so that he would have a receipt documenting the transaction.

Philip Heckler, CD5-77398, NOH, p.4, ¶9: On June 21, 2002, complainant Heckler parked in a Bayside Marina parking lot that required parking permits. Heckler had displayed his permit in his windshield. All Boro proceeded to tow Heckler’s car and charged him $108.00 before returning the car. On July 30, 2002, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.

Meryl Epstein, CD5-77397, NOH, p.4, ¶10: On June 20, 2002, complainant Epstein parked in an IHOP parking lot and went to the hairdresser’s shop next door. The hairdresser told her she could park there. When Epstein walked out of the hairdresser’s, she found her car attached to All Boro’s truck, ready to be towed. All Boro told Epstein that she had to pay $108.00 in order to have her car dropped, and that she could only pay with cash. Epstein proceeded to call the police, and upon their arrival, they told her that the All Boro driver had to accept a credit card. Epstein called an agent from All Boro’s office, and that agent changed the towing amount from $108.00 to $50.00 plus tax. Epstein paid $54.00 before her car was released. On July 30, 2002, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.

Jacqueline Hart, CD5-76859, NOH, p.4, ¶11: On June 9, 2002, complainant Hart parking in a Bayside Marina parking lot that required parking permits. Aware that she did not have a permit, Hart parked in the lot and proceeded to find out where she could purchase a permit. When she returned to the lot approximately 25 minutes later, Hart found All Boro in the process of towing her car. All Boro told Hart that she had to pay $108.00 to get her car off the truck’s lift. Hart told All Boro that she did not have enough money. All Boro then told her that she would have to walk home and get the money within 20 minutes, and then took Hart’s driver license. Hart’s boyfriend had to drive home and get the rest of the money. Hart paid $108.00 to All Boro.

Philip Demattia, CD5-16242, NOH, p.4, ¶12: On April 1, 2002, complainant Demattia parked in what he thought was a legal parking spot because there were no signs indicating that the space was prohibited. Upon returning to the parking lot, Demattia found that All Boro had towed his car away. Demattia had to pay $108.25 in order to retrieve his vehicle. On May 13, 2002, the Department mailed a copy of the complaint to All Boro.

Opinion

All charges against Respondent Robert Coppolino:

Robert Coppolino is not a licensee of the Department. The Department has failed to establish why he should be held personally liable for All Boro’s actions. Therefore, the Department has not established a prima facie violation of any the cited provisions as against him and all counts, as against him, shall be dismissed.

Charges against Respondent All Boro:

Charge 1:

The Notice of Hearing charges the respondent with failing to comply with a subpoena duces tecum, but does not cite a section of law. Therefore, this charge shall be dismissed.

Charge 2:

New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a licensed tow operator may charge for a vehicle parked on private property where “such removal is pursuant to a contract between the owner of the private property and the licensed tow operator for the removal of any such improperly parked vehicles.”

The complainants assert that All Boro towed the vehicles from private property without a valid current contract between the owner of the private property and the tow operator. However, the complainants presented no evidence regarding these contracts. As the complainants presented no evidence at the hearing regarding the subpoena referred to in the Notice of Hearing, I cannot take an adverse inference, as requested in the Notice of Hearing, that All Boro otherwise did not have contracts with the respective property owners. Cf. DCA et. al. v. Port of NYC Inc. and Arnold Lessman, supra.

Accordingly, the complainants have not established a violation of Section 19-169.1(a) related to towing the vehicles from private property without a valid current contract between the owner of the private property and the tow operator.

Charge 3:

Section 19-169.1(c) provides that:

No vehicle shall be removed by a tow operator from private property without express written authorization by the owner of the private property or his or her agent as designated in the contract between the owner of the private property and the tow operator. Such authorization shall be required for each vehicle removed, and shall include the location, make, model, color and license plate number of the vehicle to be removed.

The receipts provided to consumer complainants Rosenkranz, McVicker, Spero, Vetere, Onuoha, Heckler, Epstein, Hart and Demattia, contain signatures in the space for “authorized signature.” As to Ms. Brett, the consumer complaint only mentions “Tows R Us” as the company which towed her vehicle. The affidavit submitted by Ms. Brett is identical with every other affidavit submitted and conflicts with her complaint. Further, although given an opportunity to explain this discrepancy at the inquest, the Department failed to do so.

As the complainants did not introduce into evidence at the hearing the subpoena, or any proof that the respondent failed to comply with such subpoena, I cannot take an adverse inference, as requested in the Notice, that All Boro failed to have tow authorizations from owners of private property from which it made removals, or their designated agents. Cf. DCA et. al. v. Port of NYC Inc. and Arnold Lessman, supra.

Therefore, the complainants have failed to establish that All Boro removed these ten vehicles from private property without express written authorization by the owner of the private property or his or her agent as designated in the contract between the owner of the private property and the tow operator, in violation of New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(c).

Charge 4:

New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a licensed tow operator may charge for a vehicle parked on private property where the vehicle is so parked “in a manner inconsistent with posted instructions.”

I credit the complainants’ unrebutted evidence that the following five consumer complainants parked their vehicles in a manner consistent with posted instructions: Rosenkranz, McVicker, Vetere, Heckler and Demattia. As Onuoha admitted that he parked in a Rite Aid parking lot and proceeded to cross the street to make a purchase at a Deli after he saw that Rite Aid was closed, Onuoha was not properly parked in the Rite Aid parking lot.

Charge 5:

New York City Administrative Code Section 20-527 provides that a licensed tow operator “shall accept payment in person by credit card for any fees incurred in accordance with generally accepted business practices.”

The complainants assert that All Boro violated this section with respect to the following two consumer complainants: Roldan and Brett. As the complaint of Ms. Brett was against “Tows R Us” and there is no evidence which connects that company to All Boro, the charge related to this consumer complainant will not be considered. See charge 3, supra.

There is no evidence to support the charge that All Boro did not accept a credit card from consumer complainant Roldan.

Accordingly, the complainants have not established a violation of Section 50-527.

Charge 6:

New York City Administrative Code Section 20-509(d)(1) provides that a tow truck operator shall not require any fee or charge for towing “that is not specifically authorized by law or rule.” New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(a) provides, in pertinent part, that a tow operator who removes vehicles improperly parked on private property may collect a charge, payable before the vehicle is released, “up to but not more than one hundred dollars for removal and the first three days of storage.” New York Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(g), when read in the context of Section 19-169.1(g), provides for a maximum charge of $50 for a “drop fee” in cases where the registered owner or other person in control of a vehicle arrives at the scene prior to the removal of the vehicle and such vehicle is connected to apparatus for removal.

I credit the complainants’ evidence that the following six consumer complainants were overcharged for towing: Roldan, Rosenkranz, Spero, Vetere, Onuoha and Hart. As the complaint of Ms. Brett was against “Tows R Us” and there is no evidence which connects that company to All Boro, the charge related to this consumer complainant will not be considered. See charge 3, supra.

With respect to Roldan, I credit the complainant’s evidence that he was charged $162.00 for the tow, which is more than the permitted $100. As Roldan admitted that he was parked in a towing zone, I find that he was overcharged $62.00. (CD5-85353).

With respect to Rosenkranz, I credit the complainant’s evidence that he was a customer of the Dolphin Fitness Center and, accordingly, properly parked. I find that Rosenkranz was overcharged $162.50. (CD5-85817).

With respect to Spero, I credit the complainant’s evidence that he was charged $162.00 as a drop fee, which is more than the permitted $50. As Spero admitted that he was parked in the wrong parking lot, I find that he was overcharged $112.00. (CD5-84342).

With respect to Vetere, I credit the complainant’s evidence that she was a customer of the Kentucky Fried Chicken and, accordingly, properly parked. I find that Vetere was overcharged $108.00. (CD5-81227).

With respect to Onuoha, I credit the complainant’s evidence that he was charged $108.00 as a drop fee, which is more than the permitted $50. As Onuoha admitted that he parked in a Rite Aid parking lot and proceeded to cross the street to make a purchase at a Deli after he saw that Rite Aid was closed,, I find that he was overcharged $58.00. (CD5-80888).

With respect to Hart, I credit the complainant’s evidence that she was charged $108.00 as a drop fee, which is more than the permitted $50. As Hart admitted that she was parked in a parking space that required a permit without having a permit, I find that she was overcharged $58.00. (CD5-76859).

Charge 7a:

New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(g) provides for the provision of receipts for the “drop fees.” New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(h) provides that, in cases of removal, “[a] detailed, signed receipt showing the legal name of the person or company removing the vehicle must be given to the person paying the removal and storage charges at the time of payment.”

I credit the complainants’ evidence that All Boro failed to provide consumer complainant Roldan with a requested receipt pursuant to Section 19-169.1(g). As the complaint of Ms. Brett was against “Tows R Us” and there is no evidence which connects that company to All Boro, the charge related to this consumer complainant will not be considered. See charge 3, supra.

Charge 7b:

6 RCNY Section 5-32(c) provides that a seller must “offer a consumer a receipt for any retail purchase if the amount of the purchase is twenty dollars or more” and such receipt must contain “the total amount of money paid including a separate statement of tax.”

I credit the complainants’ evidence that All Boro failed to provide consumer complainant Azanli with a receipt that included a separate statement of tax pursuant to 6 RCNY Section 5-32 (c).

Charge 8:

The complainants failed to make a prima facie showing that “All Boro repeatedly and persistently failed to show the legal name of the person towing consumers’ vehicles on the receipt given to the consumers,” in violation of New York City Administrative Code Section 19-196.1(h). As the receipts provided show that All Boro is the company removing the vehicle, an omission of the operators’ names does not establish a prima facie violation of Section 19-169.1(h). In addition, with respect to complainant Azanli, Section 19-169.1 does not apply because this was an accident vehicle.[1]

Charge 9:

6 RCNY Section 1-13 provides, in pertinent part:

A licensee … must respond in writing to the Department about any complaint sent to the licensee … by the Department. The response must be made within 20 days of the date the complaint is sent to the licensee … must set forth the licensee’s … position regarding the transaction which is the subject of the complaint, including the facts which the licensee … believes justify its position….

The complainants’ unrebutted evidence establishes that All Boro did not respond in writing to the following seven consumer complainants’ complaints sent by the Department: Roldan, McVicker, Brett, Spero, Heckler, Epstein, and Demattia. As to Azanli and Vetere, the Department failed to provide sufficient proof that it mailed the complaints to All Boro.

Charge 10:

The complainants presented no evidence to support this charge. Moreover, as the complainants did not introduce into evidence at the hearing the subpoena that was allegedly served on the respondent, I cannot take an adverse inference, as requested in the Notice, that All Boro failed to notify the police of the arrival of the vehicles of the consumer complainants at its storage facility within the required thirty minutes, in violation of New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1(f). Cf. DCA et. al. v. Port of NYC Inc. and Arnold Lessman, supra.

Accordingly, the complainants have not established a violation of Section 19-169.1(f).

Charge 11:

Section 19-169.1(e) provides that “a vehicle which is removed shall be taken directly to a facility for storage maintained” by the licensed tow operator (emphasis added). The complainants assert that All Boro engaged in “staging” with respect to the following 2 consumer complainants: McVickar and Brett.

The credible evidence establishes that All Boro did not remove Mr. McVickar’s vehicle directly to its storage facility. As the complaint of Ms. Brett was against “Tows R Us” and there is no evidence which connects that company to All Boro, the charge related to this consumer complainant will not be considered. See charge 3, supra.

Charge 12:

The complainants have shown a consistent pattern of respondent’s lack of honesty and integrity in conducting its towing business. Therefore, the respondent is found guilty of violating New York City Administrative Code Section 20-101.

Charge 13:

Section 19-169.1(b) provides:

“No owner or operator of parking facilities on private property shall tow or cause to be towed from such private property any motor vehicle unless such owner or operator shall conspicuously post and maintain upon such private property a sign stating the name, address and telephone number of the tow operator, the hours of operation for vehicle redemption, towing and storage fees of the tow operator and the hours vehicles are prohibited from parking and subject to tow.”

Inasmuch as the complainants made no showing that either of the respondents is an “owner or operator of parking facilities on private property,” they did not make a prima facie showing of violation of Section 19-169.1(b).

Liability and Penalties for violations of New York City Administrative Code Section 19-169.1 (Charges 4, 6, 7a, and 11):

Violations have been found for charges 4, 6, 7a, and 11, which charge violations of various subsections of Section 19-169.1.

Section 19-169.1(i) provides that:

When … tow operator … causes a vehicle to be removed in violation of this section, there shall be no charge to the owner or other person in charge of the vehicle for the cost of removal and storage. Such person who has violated this section shall be liable to the owner or other person in control of the vehicle for any amounts actually paid for the removal, transportation and storage of the vehicle, as well as for any damage resulting from the removal, transportation and storage of the vehicle.

Accordingly, All Boro is liable to the following five consumer complainants as follows: $162.50 to Mel Rosenkranz (CD5-85817), $167.00 to Mary McVicker (CD5-84828), $162.00 to Laraine Vetere (CD5-81227), $108.00 to Philip Heckler (CD5-77398), $108.25 to Philip Demattia (CD5-16242).

Order

All charges against respondent Robert Coppolino hereby are dismissed.

The respondent All Boro Collision Specialist, Inc. is found guilty of charge numbers 4, 6, 7a, 7b, 9, 11 and 12.

All Boro is ordered to pay to the Department a TOTAL FINE of $16,600 as follows:

Charges 4, 6, 7a and 11: $11,750 for 13 violations (i.e., $250 for the first violation, $500 for the second violation, and $1,000 for each of 11 additional violations)[2]

Charge 7b: $350

Charge 9: $3,500 ($500 for each of 7 violations)

The respondent All Boro is found not guilty of charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 13 and these charges are dismissed.

Respondent All Boro’s license is REVOKED effective immediately. All Boro Collision Specialist, Inc. is directed to surrender its license documents to the Licensing Division immediately.

If the respondent continues to operate, with a revoked license, it is subject to CRIMINAL PROSECUTION and/or civil penalties of $100 per day for each day of unlicensed activity, as well as the closing of its business and/or the removal of items sold, offered for sale, or utilized in the operation of its business, pursuant to the Administrative Code of the City of New York Sections 20-105 and 20-106 (the “Padlock Law”).

It is further Ordered that All Boro Collision Specialist, Inc. shall pay a TOTAL RESTITUTION of $997.75, as follows to the following identified consumers:

1. $62.00 to David Roldan (CD5-85353)

2. $162.50 to Mel Rosenkranz (CD5-85817)

3. $167.00 to Mary McVicker (CD5-84828)

4. $112.00 to Vincent Spero (CD5-84342)

5. $162.00 to Laraine Vetere (CD5-81227)

6. $58.00 to Roland Onuoha (CD5-80888)

7. $108.00 to Philip Heckler (CD5-77398)

8. $58.00 to Jacqueline Hart (CD5-76859)

9. $108.25 to Philip Demattia (CD5-16242)

This constitutes the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge.

__________________________

David S. Paul

Administrative Law Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge is approved.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Department.

_______________________________

Nancy J. Schindler

Deputy Director of Adjudication

cc: Karen Miller, Esq.

Litigation & Mediation Division

Beverly Gotay

All Consumer Complainants

John L. Russo, Esq.

31-01 Broadway, 4th floor

Astoria, New York 11106

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT(S): If you wish to file a MOTION TO VACATE this decision, you must submit the motion to the Director of Adjudication, Department of Consumer Affairs, 66 John Street, New York, NY 10038, within 15 days from the date you knew or should have known of this decision. The motion must include: A check or money order for the sum of $25 payable to the Department of Consumer Affairs; and a check or money order payable to the Department of Consumer Affairs for the entire restitution amount ordered by the decision; and a sworn statement outlining a meritorious defense to the charges alleged in the Notice of Hearing; and a statement offering an excuse for its failure to appear on the designated hearing date. In addition, you must serve a copy of the motion to vacate on both the consumer complainant and the Litigation and Mediation Division of the Department of Consumer Affairs, 42 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10004.

NOTICE TO CONSUMER COMPLAINANT(S): If you wish to APPEAL this decision, or file a MOTION FOR REHEARING, you must file the appeal or motion with the Director of Adjudication, Department of Consumer Affairs, 66 John Street, New York, NY 10038 within 30 days from the date of this decision. You must include with your appeal or motion a check or money order for the sum of $25 payable to the Department of Consumer Affairs. In addition, you must serve a copy of your appeal or motion on the respondent(s).

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

[1] Although this consumer claims the respondent damaged his car, the Department did not charge the respondent with violating any section of law by causing this damage. Nor did the complainants present any proof of damage at the hearing.

[2] Section 19-169.1(j) provides that:

Any person who violates this section shall be punished as follows: for the first violation, a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars; for the second violation, within a period of twelve months of the date of the first violation, a fine of five hundred dollars; and for any additional violations within a period of twenty-four months of the date of a first violation, a fine of one thousand dollars.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download