CITY OF NEW YORK



Dept. of Consumer Affairs v. Total Renovation & Construction Inc.

CITY OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

|----------------------------------X | | |

| | |DECISION AND ORDER: |

|THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, | | |

| | |Violation No.: |

| | |DD 500044051 |

|Complainant, | |PL 353391 |

| | | |

|– against – | |License No.: |

| | |HIC-0895493 |

|TOTAL RENOVATION & CONSTRUCTION, INC. | |HIS-797740 |

|P.O. BOX 3731 | |HIC-850490 |

|12 East 41st Street | |HIC-808640 |

|New York, NY 10163-3731 | | |

| | |Premises Address: |

|And | |P.O. BOX 3731 |

| | |12 East 41st Street |

|BILL SURI | |New York, NY 10163-3731 |

|625 Main Street | | |

|Roosevelt Island, NY 10044, | |625 Main Street |

| | |Roosevelt Island, NY 10044 |

|Respondent-Licensees. | | |

| | |Date of Decision:3/17/03 |

|----------------------------------X | | |

This case originated with the filing of Complaint #CD5-44051 by Jeffrey Nachowitz against Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. and Bill Suri. Hearings on that matter were held on December 16, 1999, May 11, 2000 and June 7, 2001 before Administrative Law Judge Victoria E. Towns, Esq.

During those hearings, facts and arguments were presented on both sides by Counsel that made clear that Mr. Nachowitz’ matter should be heard separately from the allegations presented herein, and that the Department should present these allegations in a separate Notice of Hearing.

This matter is the result. Hearings on this matter were held on July 18, 2000, September 12, 2000, November 28 and 29, 2000, February 5, 2001, and May 24, 2001.

Appearing (July 18, 2000):

| | | |

|FOR THE DEPARTMENT: | |FOR THE LICENSEE: |

| | | |

|Robert Martin, Esq. | |Ronald Krakauer, Esq. |

|Lucy Tabacco, Esq. | | |

Appearing (September 12, 2000):

| | | |

|FOR THE DEPARTMENT: | |FOR THE LICENSEE: |

| | | |

|Lucy Tabacco, Esq. | |Ronald Krakauer, Esq. Bill Suri |

| | | |

Appearing (November 28, 2000):

| | | |

|FOR THE DEPARTMENT: | |FOR THE LICENSEE: |

| | | |

|Lucy Tabacco, Esq. | |Bill Suri, Pro Se |

|Chris Fan, witness | |Philip Simpson, Esq., witness |

Appearing (November 29, 2000):

|FOR THE DEPARTMENT: | |FOR THE LICENSEE: |

| | | |

|Lucy Tabacco, Esq. | |Bill Suri, Pro Se |

Appearing (February 5, 2001):

|FOR THE DEPARTMENT: | |FOR THE LICENSEE: |

| | | |

|Lucy Tabacco, Esq. | |Bill Suri, Pro Se |

Appearing (May 24, 2001):

|FOR THE DEPARTMENT: | |FOR THE LICENSEE: |

| | | |

|Lucy Tabacco, Esq. | |Bill Suri, Pro Se |

The original Notice of Hearing charged the Licensee with contracting violations. By Amended Notice of Hearing DD5-44051 served upon the Respondents-Licensees the Department charged them with violating the following:

1. Title 20, Chapter 5, Subchapter 1, §20-700 of the New York City Administrative Code (“Code”) by engaging in a pattern of fraud and deception, including but not limited to entering into contracts without the intention of completing them as contracted for, misrepresenting the ultimate price of the contract, misrepresenting when and how work would be completed, and trading under a false corporate name.

2. §20-700 of the Code by engaging in a pattern of fraud and deception including but not limited to, opening and dissolving various corporations in an effort to evade paying judgments, including those of the Department.

3. §20-393(1) of the New York City Administrative Code (the “Code”) by deviating from or disregarding the plans, specifications or terms and conditions agreed to under home improvement contracts in various material respects without the written consent of the owners.

4. §20-393(11) by failing to perform home improvement contract work under home improvement contracts in a skillful and competent manner.

5. §20-392(a)(1) by committing fraud or misrepresentation in the securing of licenses.

6. §20-392(a)(2) by the making of false statements as to material matters in applications for licenses.

7. §20-101 by failing to maintain standards of integrity, honesty and fair dealing among persons and organizations engaging in licensed activities.

8. Respondent-Licensees violated Title 6 of the Rules of the City of New York (“6RCNY”), §2-221(a)(1) by failing to disclose the true name if the contractor (Bill Suri), by including the name of a dissolved corporation (Total Renovation & Construction, Inc.), and by including the name if a second purported corporation or assumed name (TRC, Inc.) which did not legally exist on all contracts entered into after 6/23/93.

9. §20-700 by falsely advertising in New York Magazine under a false corporate name.

10. §20-109 of the Code by failing to advise the Department of a change in corporate ownership relating to Linda Suri a/k/a Carol (Footnote [1]) Brandt, and violated Title 20, Chapter 5, §20-700 by failing to disclose the true relationship between themselves and Linda Suri in connection with consumers.

The Department seeks to hold Total Renovation & Construction, Inc. and Bill Suri personally liable for all fines and penalties in connection with the above, as well as with all Trust Fund invasions the Department has paid out in restitution to consumers in the past, and will in the future. The Department also seeks to bar Respondent-Licensees from operating or being involved in any home improvement business in the City of New York on the basis that they are unfit to hold a license.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE (July 18, 2000):

Both sides were represented by Counsel.

Mr. Krakauer argued for an adjournment, saying he had not been served with any documents in response to a demand for Discovery until a hand-delivery to his office four days before the hearing.

Ms. Tabacco, in turn, noted that she had served her own Discovery Demand on June 30th, and had yet to receive any documents in response.

Mr. Krakauer then made several other arguments for an adjournment, including: 1) That Bill Suri had taken a vacation out of the country and he hadn’t been able to consult with him; 2) that the case Nachowitz v. Total Renovation and Construction (CD5-44051) was still going on and therefore the present hearings were prejudicial to that matter – or vice-versa; 3) that Mr. Suri’s records “got wet” and hadn’t dried out yet.

Since none of the reason or the adjournment application had been timely raised in writing three business days before the hearing date (pursuant to 6RCNY §6-22(a)), supported by affidavits or documentary evidence proving the need for the adjournment, the Respondent-Licensees’ application for an adjournment was denied.

Mr. Krakauer then announced that he was walking out of the hearing and filing an Article 78 Proceeding in Supreme Court concerning the adjournment request, as well as his contention that this Administrative Law Judge should recuse herself.

Before he left, Mr. Bob Martin, General Counsel, informed him that there was no Interlocutory Appeal permitted by law. Thereafter, in Mr. Krakauer’s absence, the Department presented its direct case in what had become, in effect, an inquest.

Lucy Tabacco, Esq. presented the following Exhibits:

Certificate of Mailing of PL 353391 and the Administrative Hearing Guide to Bill Suri at 625 Main Street, Roosevelt Island, NY 10044, signed by Special Inspector Wilfredo Lopez on December 10, 1999 (admitted as Department’s Exhibit A);

Certificate of Mailing of PL 353391 and the Administrative Hearing Guide to Bill Suri at 12 East 41st Street, New York, NY, 10017, signed by Special Inspector Wilfredo Lopez on December 10, 1999 (admitted as Department’s Exhibit B);

Certificate of Mailing of PL 353391 and a copy of DD5-44051 and Amended Notice of Hearing to Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. at P.O. Box 3731 12 East 41st Street, New York, NY, 10163, signed by Special Inspector Wilfredo Lopez on May 23, 2000 (admitted as Department’s Exhibit C);

Certificate of Mailing of PL 353391 and a copy of DD5-44051 and Amended Notice of Hearing to Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. at P.O. Box 6970 12 East 41st Street, New York, NY, 10163, signed by Special Inspector Wilfredo Lopez on May 23, 2000 (admitted as Department’s Exhibit D);

Certificate of Mailing of PL 353391 and a copy of DD5-44051 and Amended Notice of Hearing to Bill Suri at 625 Main Street, Roosevelt Island, NY 10044, signed by Special Inspector Wilfredo Lopez on May 23, 2000 (admitted as Department’s Exhibit E);

An Affidavit of Gabrielle Larew – then Acting Director of License Issuance at the Department of Consumer Affairs -- sworn to February 15, 1990, attesting to the fact that as of that date “Suri Designs, Inc., 43-59 10th St., Long Island City, New York, N.Y. 11101” was not licensed. Ms. Tabacco asked the ALJ to take administrative notice of this.

Supreme Court action Mark Green and the Department of Consumer Affairs, and the City of New York v. Suri Designs, brought by Order to Show Cause, Index No. 41465/90 (Department’s Exhibit H-1);

Stipulation signed in the above action on May 3, 1990 continuing the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) pending trial of the action (Department’s Exhibit H-2);

The Amended Summons and Complaint in the above-captioned action (Department’s Exhibit I);

A March 23, 1990 letter signed by Bill Suri “for: Suri Designs, Inc.” addressed to Rochelle Weinstein of DCA (admitted as Department’s Exhibit J). It is on Suri Designs, Inc. letterhead. In it, it claims affiliation with LJ Suri Interiors, Inc., licensed under #0808640.

The May 31, 1989 Home Improvement Contractor application of Suri, Inc. (#850490) signed by Bill Suri (admitted as Department’s Exhibit K-1).

The January 6, 1989 application of Suri, Inc. signed by Bill Suri as President (HIC. #0850490) (Department’s Exhibit K-2).

Department’s receipt for $150 issued to Bill Suri for the license application on May 31, 1989 (Department’s Exhibit K-3).

Department’s Notice of Renewal for HIC #850490 (Department’s Exhibit K-4).

A Departmental Decision in Rose Lippa v. Suri Inc., CD4-5716, concerning HIC #0850490, dated February 28, 1991. The ALJ fined Suri, Inc. for failing to pay a Civil Court Judgment to the Complainant and ordered the judgment paid or face revocation of the license (Department’s Exhibit L-1). Also attached is the Revocation Notice dated April 5, 1991.

Department’s Exhibit L-2 is the Appeal Determination denying Suri, Inc.’s Appeal of the decision and revocation.

Department’s Exhibit M-1 is a Departmental Decision in Department & Eugene M. Lang v. Suri, Inc. a/k/a Tri-State Contractors, CD0057214 and PL313133, concerning HIC #0850490, dated July 19, 1991. The Chief Hearing Officer found the Licensee guilty of all but one of the charges and ordered restitution paid to the Complainant. In addition, the Hearing Officer found that the Respondent placed ads in New York Magazine and other periodicals in the name Tri-State Contractors, and held itself out as such.

Department’s Exhibit M-2 is the Department’s Appeal Determination denying Suri, Inc.’s Appeal in Lang v. Suri, Inc., dated September 16, 1991. The Notice revoking license #0850490 sent to Bill Suri and Suri, Inc., dated January 6, 1992 and concerning failure to pay restitution and fines owing under CD0057214 and CD0050973 was admitted as Department’s Exhibit M-3.

Department’s Exhibit M-4/Respondent’s Exhibit 1: Order and Memorandum Decision in Application of Suri, Inc. v. Mark Green, Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the City of New York, Index No. 989/92. (Suri, Inc. went to Supreme Court to challenge the revocation.)

Department’s Exhibit N: Department decision in Department on the Complaint of Oscar D. Baeza v. Suri, Inc., CD5-18401, together with a Revocation Notice dated April 25, 1995 pertinent thereto for failing to pay a Supreme Court default judgment.

Department’s Exhibit O-1: The May 10, 1992 application of Total Renovation & Construction, Inc. (HIC. #0895493), signed by Bill Suri as President and 100% stockholder (Footnote[2]).

Department’s Exhibit O-2: Renewal of HIC #0895493, dated December 29, 1992, signed by Bill Suri, stating there had been no changes.

Department’s Exhibit O-3: Renewal of HIC #0895493, dated November 18, 1994, signed by Bill Suri, stating there had been no changes.

Department’s Exhibit O-4: Renewal of HIC #0895493, dated December 20, 1996, signed by Bill Suri, stating there had been no changes.

Department’s Exhibit O-5: Renewal of HIC #0895493, dated December 4, 1998, signed by Bill Suri, stating there had been no changes, together with application for Trust Fund.

Department’s Exhibit P-1: Denial of Renewal of HIC #0808640 application of LJ Suri Interiors dated March 3, 1993 based upon failure of Licensee “to pay CD fine of $1500. Denial is based on revocation.”

Department’s Exhibit P-2: Renewal application of LJ Suri Interiors for HIC #0808640 dated January 26, 1993, signed by Bill Suri, stating there had been no changes since the last application.

Department’s Exhibit P-3: Denial of Renewal of HIC #0808640 application of LJ Suri Interiors dated March 11, 1993 based upon failure of Licensee “to pay CD fine of $1500. Denial is based on revocation.”

Department’s Exhibit P-4: Trust Fund Application of “Suri Interiors, Inc.” signed by Bill Suri as President and asserting such corporation holds HIC license number 0808640.

Department’s Exhibit P-5: Receipt issued October 17, 1985 to Bill Suri, HIC #808640, for “HIC FUND” $150.

Department’s Exhibit Q-1: Revocation Notice and Decision revoking license # 0808640 of L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. in Department case of Lenore Ivers v. L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc.; decision and Notice both dated March 3, 1993.(Footnote[3])

Department’s Exhibit Q-2: Second Revocation Notice dated August 12, 1993, revoking license # 0808640 of L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. following appeal determination dated May 17, 1993 denying appeal of decision.

Department’s Exhibit R: Department’s decision in CD73592 Malatzky v. L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc., HIC 808640, awarding the Complainant $6,686.21 in restitution.

At this point, Terrance Colgan was sworn in to attest to the fact that in April 1999 he had made the true and correct copies of Department’s Exhibits S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4 (marked for identification purposes) from the original file in the Department File Room. Based upon his testimony, these documents were admitted:

Department’s Exhibit S-1: Bill Suri’s License application for Home Improvement Salesperson’s license #0797740, dated December 30, 1992.

Department’s Exhibit S-2: Bill Suri’s License Renewal for Home Improvement Salesperson’s license #0797740, dated March 9, 1995, stating that since his last application no license issued to him “by any governmental agency had been canceled, suspended or revoked” and also stating that no “proceeding” had been instituted against him in the “N.Y.C. Department of Consumer Affairs.”

Department’s Exhibit S-3: Bill Suri’s License Renewal for Home Improvement Salesperson’s license #0797740, dated December 20, 1996, stating that since his last application no license issued to him “by any governmental agency had been canceled, suspended or revoked” and also stating that no “proceeding” had been instituted against him in the “N.Y.C. Department of Consumer Affairs.”

Department’s Exhibit S-4: Bill Suri’s License Renewal for Home Improvement Salesperson’s license #0797740, dated December 4, 1998, stating that since his last application no license issued to him “by any governmental agency had been canceled, suspended or revoked” and also stating that no “proceeding” had been instituted against him in the “N.Y.C. Department of Consumer Affairs.”

Department’s Exhibit T-1: Department Decision CD404381, Faye Weisberg v. Linda J. Suri, concerning HIS #798493, dated May 28, 1986, ordering the Licensee to pay the Complainant restitution in the amount of $18,460.83 and suspending the license.

Department’s Exhibit T-1: CAMIS printout showing that the above Licensee failed to renew as of November 30, 1987.

Department’s Exhibit U: A Certified copy signed by New York Special Deputy Secretary of State on May 22, 2000 that Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. (Incorporated December 22, 1988) was dissolved by proclamation of the Secretary of State published on June 23, 1993 pursuant to the Tax Law, and that such dissolution has not been annulled.

Department’s Exhibit V: A Certified copy signed by New York Special Deputy Secretary of State on May 22, 2000 that the Certificate of Incorporation of TRC, Inc. was filed on October 30, 1995; that a Biennial statement was filed on October 21, 1997, and another was past due. Ms. Tabacco noted that as of 1993 and thereafter Total Renovation and (&) Construction did not exist.

Department’s Exhibit W: The contract between Jeffrey Nachowitz and TRC, Inc. dated July 10, 1996; with three (3) Addenda headed “TRC, Inc. Total Renovation and Construction.”

Department’s Exhibit X: A LEXIS/NEXIS search for the date of incorporation of “TRC, Inc.” giving it as October 30, 1995.

Department’s Exhibit Y-1: June 8, 1998 New York Magazine advertisement for TRC Inc. under “Home Improvement,” listing the telephone number of (212) 679-4825.

Department’s Exhibit Y-2: December 6, 1999 New York Magazine advertisement for TRC Inc. under “Design/Build”, listing the telephone number of (212) 679-4825.

Department’s Exhibit Y-3: December 20-27, 1999 New York Magazine advertisement for TRC Inc. under “Design/Build”, listing the telephone number of (212) 679-4825.

The matter was then continued and the record left open for the Department to submit proof that any consumer, including Jeffrey Nachowitz, had actually, seen any of the New York Magazine advertisements and been caused to call the Respondent-Licensees because of it/them.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE (September 12, 2000):

Ronald Krakauer, Esq. appeared and moved to be permitted to withdraw as Counsel for the Respondents-Licensees Total Renovation and Construction, Total Restoration, TRC and Bill Suri. He noted that he had offered Bill Suri his files, but Mr. Suri had refused to take them.

Mr. Suri objected to Mr. Krakauer’s application, stating that Counsel had submitted a bill to him even though he had already been paid a large amount, and saying that Counsel actually refused to turn over the files until the bill was paid.

On the record, Mr. Krakauer then handed over to Mr. Suri all discovery documents sent to him by the Department.

This Administrative Law Judge then granted Mr. Krakauer’s motion to be relieved as Counsel in all matters and proceedings: DD5-44051, PL353391 and CD5-44051.

Mr. Suri then stated he was unprepared to proceed and needed time to prepare, and the matter was reset for the completion of the Department’s case and the start of the Respondent’s case. The Respondent was directed to decide whether to proceed pro se or retain Counsel, and to mail Discovery responses to the Department and the ALJ by October 31, 2000.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE (November 28, 2000):

Chris Fan testified for the Department, stating that for two years he had been Deputy Director of License Issuance. Prior to that, he had served as Deputy Director of Collections for two years, supervising (among other things) the invasion of the Trust Funds for reparations to Complainants for restitution owed by Licensees.

In addition, he was the present custodian of Licensing records, which he then presented, as follows: Affidavits of Consumers swearing that they had received funds paid from the Home Improvement Business Trust Fund; a copy of the check or a voucher therefore; a copy of the I.D. of the employee releasing said fund to the consumer, and a copy of the I.D. of the Consumer. These documents were presented and admitted as follows:

Department’s Exhibit Z-1: Consumer Rose Lippa’s acknowledgement of receipt of $2,114.73 in Home Improvement Trust Business Funds in case of CD 45716 (HIC #850490), together with supporting documents.

Department’s Exhibit Z-2: Consumer Eugene Lang’s acknowledgement of receipt of $13,681.00 in Home Improvement Trust Business Funds in case of CD 57214 (HIC #850490), together with supporting documents.

Department’s Exhibit Z-3: Consumer Lenore Ivers’ acknowledgement of receipt of $3,936.84 in Home Improvement Trust Business Funds in case of CD 73590 (HIC #808640), together with supporting documents.

Department’s Exhibit Z-4: Consumer Arlene Malatzky’s acknowledgement of receipt of $3,936.84 in Home Improvement Trust Business Funds in case of CD 73590 (HIC #808640), together with supporting documents.

Department’s Exhibit Z-5(a): Consumer Oscar Baeza’s acknowledgement of receipt of $10,000.00 (for a first payment) in Home Improvement Trust Business Funds in case of CD5-018401(HIC #850490), together with supporting documents.

Department’s Exhibit Z-5(b): Consumer Oscar Baeza’s acknowledgement of receipt of $10,000.00 (for a final payment) in Home Improvement Trust Business Funds in case of CD5-018401(HIC #850490), together with supporting documents.

Department’s Exhibit AA: Affidavit of Jeffrey Nachowitz, Sworn to on September 9, 2000 before a Notary Public stating that in March 1996 he saw an advertisement run by TRC Inc. in New York Magazine listing a telephone number (212) 679-4825. The Affidavit also states he hired TRC because of the ad.

Department’s Exhibit BB: The New York Magazine advertisement to which Mr. Nachowitz swore he responded.

Bill Suri then commenced the Respondent’s case. He argued that TRC was dissolved because he didn’t pay the franchise tax, and that that had nothing to do with its suitability as a Home Improvement Contractor. In addition, he stated “just because it was dissolved by Proclamation (Footnote[4]) doesn’t mean [that] it’s not a good and working corporation.”

He cross-examined Chris Fan, establishing that the Department needed to present proof that Eugene Lang had actually received the #13,000 check.

Bill Suri then presented his own Exhibits, as follows:

Respondent’s Exhibit 1: The same document as Department’s Exhibit M-4 (Suri, Inc. v. Mark Green, #989/92, brought in reference to CD-57214, Eugene Lang v. Suri Inc. d/b/a/ Tri-State Contractors).

Respondent’s Exhibit 2: Copies of Mr. Suri’s Professional Membership and affiliation cards.

Respondent’s Exhibit 3: Copies of TRC’s franchise tax papers (Exhibits 3-a; 3-b; 3-c).

Respondent’s Exhibit 4-a: License Issuance letter to Bill Suri dated May 26, 1993 concerning HIS 0797740 and HIC 0808640, referring all renewal correspondence to the General Counsel’s office.

Respondent’s Exhibit 4-b and 4-c: Bill Suri’s letters to License Issuance dated March 4, 1993 and May 14, 1993 concerning renewal of HIS 0797740.

Respondent’s Exhibit 4-d: Copy of Bill Suri’s money order for above renewal.

Respondent’s Exhibit 5: Copies of Mr. Suri’s first license as a Home Improvement Salesperson #0797740 (4/23/85) and his current one (expiration date: 12/31/00).

Respondent’s Exhibits 6-a, 6-b, 6-c and 6-d: All licenses of Total Renovation and Construction, Inc., HIC #0895493, from 8/04/92 to the current one (expiration date: 12/31/00).

Respondent’s Exhibits 7-a, 7-b, and 7-c: Total Renovation and Construction, Inc.’s 1995 renewal application rejection (7-a) for incomplete employee roster; employee roster (7-b); Certificate of Mailing of same.

Respondent’s Exhibit 8: Total Renovation and Construction, Inc.’s Roster of Employees, filed as 12/4/98.

Respondent’s Exhibit 9: December 22, 1986 letter from Jonathan Ross, Director of Adjudication, to L.J. Suri, dismissing “Citation #16513.” (Footnote[5])

Mr. Suri then (acting pro se) conducted the direct examination of Philip Simpson, Esq. Mr. Simpson testified concerning the matter of Suri, Inc. v. Axelrod, in which he said he had represented Suri Designs, Inc. He said he and “Ms. Patricoff, Esq.” and he agreed that the Temporary Restraining Order against Suri Designs, Inc. was only to continue pending trial, and that this was the first appearance in court.

He also stated that in addition to a law background, he had construction experience, though he wasn’t an expert witness concerning quality in construction, he admitted. He said he represented Suri, Inc. before the Department (DCA) in the Eugene Lang & Styler matter, which he termed merely a “quality of work and breach of contract” case.

At this point, he said that he knew Bill Suri as David Miller, and thus had drafted the Release for the Axelrods to sign releasing him in that name.

Under oath, Bill Suri then stated that he was indeed David Miller. He explained that he “took” the name “David Miller” only because that was the name of an old office manager and some times when people called whom he wanted to avoid, he’d answer the phone as “David Miller.”

The hearing was then adjourned and continued to the next day.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE (November 29, 2000):

Lucy Tabacco, Esq. moved into evidence the following documents on behalf of the Department’s case:

Department’s Exhibit K-4: Suri Inc.’s HIC #850490 renewal documents for 1989, signed by Bill Suri, with all answers being “No” in response to crucial questions.

Department’s Exhibit P-6: HIC application of L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. for HIC 808640 at 43-59 10 Street, Long Island City, NY 11101. It is dated April 23, 1985, signed by Bill Suri as President, states it is a corporation.

Department’s Exhibit P-7: Renewal notice for the above, signed by Bill Suri, stating there had been no changes since the last application. It is dated November 7, 1985, together with the Trust Fund application signed by Bill Suri as President of “Suri Interiors, Inc.” HIC 808640 dated October 1, 1985, and the receipt mentioned in #31 above.

Department’s Exhibit P-8: Renewal Notice, and Application for the above signed by Bill Suri, stating there had been no changes since the last application dated October 24, 1987, together with the Renewal Information Sheet listing the Applicant’s Corporate name as “Suri Interiors, Inc.”

Department’s Exhibit P-9: Renewal Notice, and Application for the above signed by Bill Suri, stating there had been no changes since the last application. It’s dated June 4, 1990.

Department’s Exhibit CC: March 15, 1993 letter from L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. to the Director of the Licensing Division concerning HIC #808640, requesting a refund of $300 (application fee and Trust Fund contribution) since license had already been revoked.

Department’s Exhibit DD: August 18, 2000 (current) website of TRC/Total Renovation and Construction, Inc.(being an opening page and several “click-through” pages) all at (Footnote[6]).

Department’s Exhibit EE: Letter from Licensing Division to L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. postmarked May 25, 1989, marked “Returned to Sender, Moved, Left No Address.” (concerning HIC #808640)

Bill Suri then continued with the Respondent-Licensee’s case, arguing that he could not properly pursue all of his Article 78 cases because of lack of funds. Further he noted that he could not appeal CD-18401 because his attorney told him it would take a huge legal fee. He stated that the entire Departmental Adjudication system was unfair to vendors in this way.

He then presented further Respondent’s documents:

Respondent’s Exhibit’s 3-b and 3-c: being new and legible copies of previously admitted exhibits.

Respondent’s Exhibit 10-a: Also admitted as Department’s Exhibit H-2; however, the Respondent’s copy is the one filed with the court.

Respondent’s Exhibit’s 10-b and 10-c: Also admitted as Department’s Exhibit H-1; however, the Respondent’s copy is the one filed with the court.

Respondent’s Exhibit 11: Attorney’s letter dated May 10, 1991 signed by Philip T. Simpson concerning denial of summary judgment in Suri Designs and Suri, Inc. v. Axelrod. Addressee is Susan Kassapian, Esq. “Chief of Litigation, New York City Department of Consumer Affairs.”

Respondent’s Exhibit 12: Justice Wilk’s Decision referenced above.

Respondent’s Exhibit 13: Also admitted as Department’s Exhibit J.

Respondent’s Exhibit 14: Also admitted as Department’s Exhibit M-1.

Respondent’s Exhibit 15-a: Also admitted as Department’s Exhibit CC-2, upon Ms. Tabacco’s motion.

Respondent’s Exhibit 15-b: Also admitted as Department’s Exhibit CC-2, upon Ms. Tabacco’s motion. The document is a release signed by the Axelrods releasing Suri Designs, Inc., Linda Suri and David Miller d/b/a Suri Designs, Inc., and David Miller.

Respondent’s Exhibit 16: Additional New York Magazine ads under “Home/Business Improvement” and “Interior Designers and Architects” offered to show similarities with the TRC ad.

Respondent’s Exhibit 17: Respondent’s response to Department’s Exhibit G dated April 12, 1990 (concerning the Axelrod complaint).

Respondent’s Exhibit 18: May 13, 1993 letter from Suri Inc. to Peter Lempin, First Assistant Commissioner of Operations, regarding the Lippa complaint.

Respondent’s Exhibit 19: Suri, Inc.’s May 25, 1995 cover letter for its appeal of the decision in CD5-18401, Department v. Suri, Inc. (decision dated 4/15/95).

Respondent’s Exhibit 20: Temporary Order of Protection (also known as a T.O.P.) issued against “Ismal Crespo” in favor of Carole Brandt. Mr. Suri contended that he and Mrs. Suri were prevented from testifying in CD-73590 on September 2, 1992 because of Mr. Crespo’s presence as a witness in that matter, in light of the T.O.P.

Respondent’s Exhibit 18: May 13, 1993 letter from Suri Inc. to Peter Lempin, First Assistant Commissioner of Operations, regarding the Lippa complaint.

Thereafter, the case was adjourned and reset.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE (February 5, 2001):

Bill Suri stated that Carole Brandt could not be present due to her illness (Footnote[7]). Yet, he said she was a crucial witness.

The hearing proceeded.

Lucy Tabacco, Esq. then proceeded with the Department’s case, offering the following documents:

Department’s Exhibit FF-1: A “Vendor Report Summary” broken down by fiscal year, showing that a check issued by the Department’s Trust Fund account to Eugene Lang for $13,681.00 cleared on June 2, 1993.

Department’s Exhibit FF-2: An Affidavit sworn to by Eugene Lang on January 23, 2001 attesting to the fact that he did receive the $13,681.00 check and deposited it to his bank account. (Footnote[8])

Department’s Exhibit GG-1: Tax Liens on Suri, Inc. from 11/30/89 through 12/31/99, plus surcharges, indicating that no franchise tax reports or taxes had been paid for this period.

Department’s Exhibit GG-2: Tax Liens on Suri Designs, Inc. from 12/31/86 through 12/31/88; 5/31/91 through 5/31/00, plus surcharges, indicating that no franchise tax reports or taxes had been paid for this period.

Department’s Exhibit GG-3: Tax Liens on L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. from 8/31/85 through 8/31/91; 4/30/92 through 4/30/95; and 2/28/96 through 2/28/00 plus surcharges, indicating that no franchise tax reports or taxes had been paid for this period.

Department’s Exhibit GG-4: Tax Liens on Suri Interiors, Inc. from 8/31/88 through 8/31/92; 4/30/93, 4/30/94, 3/31/95 through 3/31/00, plus surcharges, indicating that no franchise tax reports or taxes had been paid for this period.

Department’s Exhibit GG-5: Tax Liens on Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. from 12/31/89 through 12/31/94; 3/31/95, through 3/31/00, plus surcharges, indicating that no franchise tax reports or taxes had been paid for this period.

Department’s Exhibit HH-1: State of New York Department of State Certificate signed by a Special Deputy Secretary of State on September 8, 2000 attesting to the fact that Suri Inc. “was dissolved by proclamation of the Secretary of State published on 09/28/1994” pursuant to the Tax Law and that such dissolution has not been annulled.

Department’s Exhibit HH-2: State of New York Department of State Certificate signed by a Special Deputy Secretary of State on September 8, 2000 attesting to the fact that Suri Designs Inc. “was dissolved by proclamation of the Secretary of State published on 09/29/1993” pursuant to the Tax Law and that such dissolution has not been annulled.

Department’s Exhibit HH-3: State of New York Department of State Certificate signed by a Special Deputy Secretary of State on September 8, 2000 attesting to the fact that L.J. Suri Interiors Inc. “was dissolved by proclamation of the Secretary of State published on 03/25/1992” pursuant to the Tax Law and that such dissolution has not been annulled.

Department’s Exhibit HH-4: State of New York Department of State Certificate signed by a Special Deputy Secretary of State on September 8, 2000 attesting to the fact that Suri Interiors Inc. “was dissolved by proclamation of the Secretary of State published on 09/23/1992” pursuant to the Tax Law and that such dissolution has not been annulled.

Department’s Exhibit II: Affidavit of Tessa R. Lyons, sworn to on January 8, 2001, stating that she signed a contract with TRC Inc. on September 14, 1998 after seeing their ad in New York Magazine and meeting with TRC’s representatives, Carole Brandt and David Miller. Who signed the contract on behalf of TRC Inc. (annexed as Exhibit 1 to the Affidavit). It also states that David Miller told her that the “Owners of TRC Inc. were not available.” She subsequently brought CD5-60979 against Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. (Footnote[9]). She further notes that she has identified Bill Suri as David Miller from a photograph (annexed as Exhibit 2). (Footnote[10])

Bill Suri voiced his objections to each item of evidence throughout the Department’s case, in each case being overruled and having his objections noted for appeal.

In particular, he objected to the admission of the tax lien documents, stating that his basis for objecting was the legal doctrine of Laches. He also noted that none of the corporations had anything to do with TRC, or Total Renovation and Construction, and therefore his failure to pay taxes in those corporations was irrelevant to the present corporation or himself.

Ms. Tabacco argued, conversely, that such disregard of the law was relevant because it showed that Mr. Suri was not fit to hold a license. She stated that there was sufficient cause to pierce the corporate veil or, at the least, find him unfit based upon his pattern of flouting the law.

Under oath, he then made a statement that he did indeed fold corporations up and fail to pay the tax, but that (in effect) “So what?” It did not have any relevance to Total Renovation and Construction, Inc.

The Administrative Law Judge then asked him what happened to the consumers when he folded up corporations. His response was that the Trust Fund paid their restitution, because that was what it was for.

On direct, Mr. Suri moved to dismiss the Department’s case for failure to state a cause of action and for failure to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Decision was reserved on both Motions.

He then went on to deny paragraphs 1 through 9 of the Amended Notice of Hearing, saying that he objected to the Department paying money to Complainants on cases against him out of the Trust Fund. He stated further that DCA had “no right” to judge the quality of his work.

He said he never acted personally as a contractor, always signing contracts as a corporation. He argued that just because a corporation was dissolved by the Secretary of State by Proclamation didn’t mean it didn’t exist for contract purposes. Thus, he argued, he never signed any contract personally, only as a corporate officer.

He stated that all renewals that he signed “Bill Suri” he signed truthfully: since they asked if any licenses issued “to you” had been cancelled or revoked at any time. But the only license issued to Bill Suri, his HIS license, was still current, and therefore (he reasoned) he never lied on these forms because only his corporations had their licenses revoked or suspended.

After some further argument, the matter was then adjourned and reset, with directions to both sides that the next hearing would be final for both sides.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE (May 24, 2001):

Lucy Tabacco, Esq., appearing for the Department, presented closing arguments. She argued that the case was in essence both a fitness case and one for unlicensed activity.

She noted that once Total Renovation and Construction was dissolved by Proclamation, it ceased to exist as a corporation. Yet Mr. Suri never disclosed its dissolution to either the Department or to consumers with whom he continued to form and sign contracts (as Total Renovation and Construction’s “President”). She stated he did the same as “President” of the dissolved L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc., and Suri, Inc., never disclosing the dissolution of these corporations to the Department either.

In addition, she argued, the Temporary Restraining Order issued by Justice Wilk in the Axelrods’ case was never withdrawn or dismissed. She opined that it therefore continued against Total Renovation and Construction to the present day.

She stated that Bill Suri was the sole corporate officer of each corporation dissolved for failure to pay tax liens, and no other corporate officers were involved. Such failure to pay taxes showed a lack of fitness, she argued, since it evinced a lack of respect for the law in general.

But, she argued, Mr. Suri continued his pattern of flouting authority by failing to pay the Department’s fines and restitution as well. In total he accrued over $61,000 in unpaid fines and restitution, she stated.

The other pattern evidenced by the documents presented in the Departments case, she said, were the serial opening and closing of corporations to avoid paying restitution to consumers. For example, she argued, once Suri, Inc.’s license was revoked, Mr. Suri opened L.J. Suri Interiors. Meanwhile, Total Renovation and Construction failed to give notice to the Department on its application that when it applied L.J. Suri Interiors existed and was operating. He also failed to notify the Department of the dissolution of Total Renovation and Construction in June of 1993.

Ms. Tabacco continued, arguing that the case was also against Bill Suri individually. This was a case of the complete domination of a corporation by an individual, she stated: he was the sole and 100% stockholder, he was the President, and he was the sole Officer. He was, in effect, the corporation.

Furthermore, she said, Suri placed ads in New York Magazine for “TRC Inc.” -- meaning Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. – during a period when that corporation did not exist, yet the ads listed the same telephone number as that on the letterhead as Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. Furthermore, she stated, the ads stated that “TRC, Inc.” was “licensed” but there was never a Home Improvement License issued for that entity. Even the Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. contracts bore the imprint of “TRC, Inc.” on their covers, she noted, and in at least one case Bill Suri signed under an alias as “David Miller.” This was a clearly illegal and fraudulent act, she stated.

In all of the DCA decisions against Mr. Suri’s companies involving fines and restitution, Ms. Tabacco stated, none of Mr. Suri’s companies had ever paid the fines to the Department or paid the restitution to the Consumers. In each case, the Home Improvement Business Trust Fund had to be invaded to pay the consumer the restitution.

Ms. Tabacco concluded that the Department sought fines for unlicensed activity against Total Renovation and Construction as follows: (1) Either $100 per day from the present (based on the still-operating website) back to the date of dissolution in 1993. (2) Or, in the alternative, $100 per day from the present day back to 1996 (the year of the Nachowitz contract was signed and the work was done). Another alternative, she said, was to fine $500 per month for either of those alternate time periods.

Bill Suri, appearing pro se, first renewed his motion to dismiss: this time on grounds that the Department had not proven that he was individually involved. He also made a motion to dismiss as to Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. on the bases of laches, harassment, and failure to present adequate proof. He cited the Business and Corporation Law §1006, as well as Bowditch v. 57 Laight St. Corp., 111 Misc.2d 255 (1981).

He said he had no further witnesses to present, and then made his closing arguments, as follows:

(1) He denied all the charges in the Amended Notice of Hearing as to “both TRC and myself.”

(2) He argued that when he dissolved all of the corporations – including Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. – there was no intent to evade judgements or decisions awarding restitution. Each corporate dissolution was necessary because each corporation simply ran out of funds: they paid judgements and had no money left, he said. In each of those matters, he stated, his Corporation was owed money by the consumer: the clients he collected from then complained to DCA in retaliation.

(3) He stated that there had never been any harm to any consumer, since they never deviated from any contract terms and even if consumers were dissatisfied they had always been paid out of the Home Improvement Business Trust Fund.

(4) As to the charge of misrepresentation in the securing of licenses and renewal licenses, Mr. Suri denied this, saying that each form was answered in such a way that it was in no way deceptive or dishonest. In any event, he stated, he was never personally involved since each time he signed as a representative of a corporation.

(5) He vehemently denied charge number “7” of the Notice of Hearing, saying in all things he and his corporation were very honest, fair and “upright.”

(6) He further argued that he never meant to confuse anyone by using “TRC, Inc.” to imply that it was a corporation separate and apart from Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. Instead, he said, it was merely a form of shorthand for the proper corporate name. In that same vein, he said he used “TRC Inc.” in the New York Magazine ads to save money because the magazine charged per line of text.

(7) Finally, he argued that including charge #10 against his wife was over-reaching, barred by laches, and politically-motivated, since she was not an owner or officer of Total Renovation and Construction, Inc.

The parties were given adequate time to present post-hearing briefs.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

During the hearings, Respondent’s counsel withdrew, and Mr. Suri proceeded pro se. This raises a threshold issue. I hold that Mr. Suri knowingly chose to proceed pro se, and that his defense was not harmed thereby.

Next, as to the Respondent-Licensees’ various motions to dismiss: They are denied. Laches does not apply here, for the reasons set forth below.

AS TO DD5-44051:

I have reviewed all of the documents and testimony presented in this matter, and considered both sides dispassionately and at great length. In so doing, I have come to the conclusion that the Department has proven the bulk of the charges contained in the Amended Notice of Hearing under DD5-44051 by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, as set forth below.

1. On the charge of violating Title 20, Chapter 5, Subchapter 1, §20-700 of the New York City Administrative Code (“Code”) by engaging in a pattern of fraud and deception, including but not limited to entering into contracts without the intention of completing them as contracted for, misrepresenting the ultimate price of the contract, misrepresenting when and how work would be completed, and trading under a false corporate name, I find Bill Suri individually guilty; I also find Total Renovation and Construction, Inc. guilty.

The Department has shown that Mr. Suri did this as “President” of several corporations or closed corporations that either he or the Secretary or Department of State then closed (such as L.J. Suri Interiors Inc., Suri Inc. and Total Renovation and Construction Inc.) In connection with all of these, the Department has presented adequate evidence of the charge, showing that Mr. Suri signed contracts with consumers, which later ballooned in cost, leading to charges being filed against these licensees with the Department.

2. On the charge of violating §20-700 of the Code by engaging in a pattern of fraud and deception including but not limited to, opening and dissolving various corporations in an effort to evade paying judgments, including those of the Department, I find Bill Suri individually guilty.

The Department has shown that Mr. Suri did this as “President” of several corporations or State-dissolved corporations that either he or the Secretary or Department of State then closed by Proclamation and publication (such as L.J. Suri Interiors Inc., Suri Inc. and Total Renovation and Construction Inc.) In connection with all of these, the Department has presented adequate evidence of the charge, showing that Mr. Suri serially opened corporations, failed to notify this Department of State corporate dissolutions, and failed to pay this Department’s fines and restitution charges despite having failed to succeed on Appeal or in an Article 78 proceeding.

3. On the charge of violating §20-393(1) of the New York City Administrative Code (the “Code”) by deviating from or disregarding the plans, specifications or terms and conditions agreed to under home improvement contracts in various material respects without the written consent of the owners, I find Bill Suri individually guilty and as the purported President of Total Renovation and Construction, “Inc.”

The Department has proven this charge by a preponderance of the credible evidence. When the contract with Jeffrey Nachowitz was signed, Total Renovation and Construction had already been dissolved as a corporation by Proclamation of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the evidence proven through the companion case of Department and Nachowitz v. Total Renovation and Construction and Bill Suri, CD5-44051, of which I now take administrative notice, shows that Mr. Suri acting in an individual capacity, and not a corporate one.

4. On the charge of violating §20-393(11) by failing to perform home improvement contract work under home improvement contracts in a skillful and competent manner, I find Bill Suri individually guilty and as the purported President of Total Renovation and Construction, “Inc.”

The Department has proven this charge by a preponderance of the credible evidence. When Jeffrey Nachowitz signed the contract with Bill Suri (claiming to be “President” of Total Renovation and Construction, Inc.” as well as of “TRC, Inc.”), Total Renovation and Construction had already been dissolved as a corporation by Proclamation of the Secretary of State, and TRC, Inc. never existed as a corporation. Therefore, I take administrative notice of the evidence proven through the companion case of Department and Nachowitz v. Total Renovation and Construction and Bill Suri, CD5-44051, which shows that Mr. Suri was acting in an individual capacity, and not a corporate one.

5. On the charge of violating §20-392(a)(1) by committing fraud or misrepresentation in the securing of licenses, I find Bill Suri individually guilty.

The Department has proven this charge by a preponderance of the credible evidence. Departmental records presented during these hearings show that Mr. Suri failed to disclose that other licenses had been issued. Certainly, Mr. Suri never disclosed on certain applications that the Department had taken action against another of his corporations, or that those other licensees had had their licenses revoked, suspended, or denied renewal, or that fines and restitution had been awarded. He also (naturally) never disclosed that such fines and restitution went unpaid by these licensees.

I further note that the failure to inform the Department of the dissolution of the corporate form of licensed entities is itself a violation of this section, when a renewal is filed.

6. On the charge of violating §20-392(a)(2) by the making of false statements as to material matters in applications for licenses, I find Bill Suri individually guilty. See above.

7. On the charge of violating §20-101 by failing to maintain standards of integrity, honesty and fair dealing among persons and organizations engaging in licensed activities, I find Bill Suri individually guilty. See above.

In addition, the Department has proven this charge by a preponderance of the evidence through its proofs concerning the consumer cases that Mr. Suri and his “corporations” defended Department matters concerning Consumers—going to great lengths to appeal—when the “corporations had in fact already been dissolved by Proclamation of the Secretary of State. For example:

Oscar Baeza v. Suri, Inc. CD-18401 (fines: $500, restitution: $34,845.69), decision dated 4/25/95; appealed and upheld on appeal 7/17/95. Suri, Inc. was dissolved by Proclamation on September 28, 1994.

Lenore Ivers v. L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. CD-73590 (fines: $1,500; restitution: $3,936.84), decision dated 3/3/93; upheld on appeal 5/17/93; Notice of Revocation 8/12/93. L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. was dissolved by Proclamation on March 25, 1992.

Arlene Malatsky v. L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. CD-73592 (fines: $250; restitution: $6,686.21), decision dated 4/6/93; L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. was dissolved by Proclamation on March 25, 1992.

None of these fines or restitution was paid by Mr. Suri or his “corporations.” The restitution comes to $61,264.47 owed to consumers, who were paid a total of $46,418.78 out of the Trust Fund.

In addition, there is the matter of going by an alias, “David Miller.” Mr. Suri, under oath, acknowledged signing a Release as David Miller, and his own attorney stated that he knew his client as David Miller. In addition, he represented himself to the Axelrods as “David Miller.” I found his explanation of this disingenuous and not credible. The use of an alias does not fit within the standard of integrity, honesty and fair-dealing which the Department should expect of its licensees.

8. On the charge of that Respondent-Licensees violated Title 6 of the Rules of the City of New York (“6RCNY”), §2-221(a)(1) by failing to disclose the true name of the contractor (Bill Suri), by including the name of a dissolved corporation (Total Renovation & Construction, Inc.), and by including the name of a second purported corporation or assumed name (TRC, Inc.) which did not legally exist on all contracts entered into after 6/23/93, I find Bill Suri individually guilty.

In going by an alias, “David Miller” when he entered into the Axelrods contract, Mr. Suri failed to disclose the true name of the President of the corporation with which they were dealing. In effect, he repeated the same act when he misrepresented Total Renovation and Construction (a dissolved corporation) as “TRC Inc.” in the New York Magazine advertisements, on his website, letterhead and contract coversheets in the Nachowitz contract. He thereby violated this section.

9. On the charge of violating §20-700 by falsely advertising in New York Magazine under a false corporate name, I find Bill Suri individually guilty.

The advertisements list “TRC, Inc.” There is no such corporation.

10. On the charge of violating §20-109 of the Code by failing to advise the Department of a change in corporate ownership relating to Linda Suri a/k/a Carol (Footnote [11]) Brandt, and violated Title 20, Chapter 5, §20-700 by failing to disclose the true relationship between themselves and Linda Suri in connection with consumers.

I find that the Department has failed to present sufficient evidence of this charge; it must be dismissed.

The Department seeks to hold Total Renovation & Construction, Inc. and Bill Suri personally liable for all fines and penalties in connection with the above, as well as with all Trust Fund invasions the Department has paid out in restitution to consumers in the past, and will in the future. The Department also seeks to bar Respondent-Licensees from operating or being involved in any home improvement business in the City of New York on the basis that they are unfit to hold a license. I agree.

The Department has presented overwhelming evidence of Mr. Suri’s lack of respect for the Department’s Rules and Regulations. On the record, he has stated that he does not believe that the Department has a “right” to regulate any contractor, and has no right to hear consumer complaints or order restitution or fines.

He has admitted operating his companies despite having had licenses revoked, and even after the Secretary of State has declared the companies null and void. He has evinced a blatant disregard for the law in these actions, and for the welfare of the consumers with which he would deal under the imprimatur of the Department of Consumer Affairs.

I recommend that Mr. Suri be henceforth be prohibited from holding any Home Improvement license of any kind, including his Home Improvement Salesperson’s license.

AS TO PL353391:

I find the Respondent Bill Suri guilty of operating as an unlicensed Home Improvement Contractor, “TRC, Inc.” on the following dates: July 1996 to August 2000, as follows: from the date the Nachowitz contract was signed until the last date the Department proved that the website was running with the “TRC, Inc.” heading.

RECOMMENDED ORDER:

As to Bill Suri operating as “TRC, Inc.”:

It is Ordered that the Respondent shall pay to the Department a total fine of $24,500: $500 per month of unlicensed activity for 49 months (July 1996 to August 2000).

It is further Ordered, that the above respondent shall immediately discontinue its unlicensed activity at the above-referenced premises, and

It is further Ordered, that the above premises used primarily for the operation of the illegal, unlicensed activity shall be SEALED if such illegal activity is not discontinued within 10 days of the posting of this Order; and.

It is further Ordered, that any devices, items or goods sold, offered for sale, or available for public use or utilized in the operation of a business and relating to such illegal activity shall be removed, sealed or otherwise made inoperable if such illegal activity is not discontinued within 10 days of the posting of this Order. Any perishable goods or food products seized by the Department pursuant to the within Order which cannot be retained without them becoming unwholesome, putrid, decomposed or unfit in any way will be disposed of pursuant to the provisions of Section 17-323 of the New York City Administrative Code.

As to Bill Suri individually:

It is hereby Ordered that the Respondent-Licensee shall pay to the Department a total fine of $2600 as follows:

1. $350 for violating Code §20-700;

2. $350 for violating Code §20-700;

3. $500 for violating Code §20-393(1);

4. $500 for violating Code §20-393(11); (Footnote[12])

5. $200 for violating 6RCNY §2-221(a)(1);

6. $700 for violating Code §20-700 (2 counts)(Footnote[13]);

It is hereby further Ordered that Bill Suri shall repay to the Department a total amount of $46,418.78 in restitution owed to the Home Improvement Business Trust Fund.

It is hereby Ordered that BILL SURI IS HEREBY INDIVIDUALLY BANNED FROM APPLING FOR OR HOLDING A HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY OR SALESPERSON LICENSE, OR HOLDING MORE THAN A 5% INTEREST IN ANY HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY LICENSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS.

It is HEREBY ORDERED that all licenses are IMMEDIATELY REVOKED effective immediately. The Respondents are directed to surrender their license documents to the Licensing Division immediately.

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

This constitutes the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge.

Victoria Towns, Esq.

Administrative Law Judge

FINDINGS AND ORDER:

The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the Order recommended by the Administrative Law Judge are hereby approved.

This constitutes an Order of the Department.

Diana Zalph, Esq.

Director of Adjudication

TOTAL FINES: $2600

TOTAL RESTITUTION:$46,418.78

LICENSES 0895493 (HIC) and 0797740 (HIS) REVOKED.

cc: Robert Martin, Esq.

Lucy Tabacco, Esq.

Ronald Krakauer, Esq.

50 Broadway

New York, NY 10004

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

[1] Also Carole

[2] The application contains statements that no court judgments had been entered by consumers and remained unpaid; that no individual on the license application had had any type of license denied, suspended or revoked.

[3] The decision is based upon Bill Suri’s failure to pay outstanding fines and restitution in a prior case pending against Suri, Inc. The ALJ noted that L.J. Suri Interiors, Inc. had Bill Suri as “president and sole stockholder” who “failed to abide by the rules and regulations of the home improvement business law.”

[4] Of the New York Secretary of State

[5] Mr. Suri stated that this referred to Department’s Exhibit T-1. That matter was Faye Weisberg v. Linda J. Suri, Complaint No. 404381, concerning license # 798493, issued May 28, 1986. In that matter, the Licensee was fined $500 and ordered to pay $18,460.83 in restitution, and the license was suspended.

[6] Lucy Tabacco, Esq. stated she went “online” on her home computer to obtain the Exhibit.

[7] Ms. Brandt was diagnosed during the time between the last hearing and this hearing as suffering from esophageal adenocarcinoma, and underwent surgery and treatment, according to doctors’ notes supplied by Mr. Suri in his requests for adjournments, which were granted. Her surgery took place August 22, 2000 according to a note from her doctor.

[8] The Notary’s Jurat is hand-written, which does not invalidate it in any way.

[9] Heard by ALJ Dennis, in an inquest, on March 20, 2002; he has not yet rendered a decision.

[10] Mr. Suri stated that the Lyons were English and he “wanted to hide the fact he was from India.”

[11] Also Carole

[12] Charges 5 through 7 involve only revocation, not monetary fines)

[13] Both Jeffrey Nachowitz and Terry Lyons submitted Affidavits that they located Mr. Suri through the “TRC,Inc.” New York Magazine ads.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download