Business Integrity Commission V. Mordechai Rubbish Inc

TW 609

Page 2

Business Integrity Commission v. Mordechai Rubbish Inc.

CITY OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Appearances: For the Commission: Lt. Willis, Lt. O’Brien and Cecilia Chin, Auditor. For the Respondent: Moshe Junger, owner and Esther Hirschfeld, his sister.

The respondent is charged with violating the following:

1) 17 RCNY 5-03f by failing to file the annual financial statement required of all licensees.

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

Findings of Fact

The respondent failed to file the annual financial statement of licensees required by the Commission for the year 2001. The corporation had four boxes of records seized by the Department of Labor on August 23, 2001 and the records were returned to the respondent on April 28, 2003.

Opinion

The credible evidence establishes that respondent is in violation as charged by the Commission. The only open issue is the extent of the culpability of the respondent.

Both sides agree that Ms. Hirschfeld spoke to the Commission via telephone and obtained an extension of time for the submission of the statement. Beyond that there was no further verbal communications. Nor was there any attempt made by the respondent to communicate in writing to the Commission.

Further, the records seized did not constitute all of the corporation’s financial records (refer to Exhibit 2, Letter from Y&I Accounting dated February 18, 2003). The respondent could have prepared some sort of preliminary document with an explanation to the Commission of the circumstances and a commitment to amend when the seized records were released. No such effort was made.

Ms. Chin stated that one of the primary reasons that the Notice of Hearing was issued was the lack of communication from respondent regarding this matter. If the respondent had made more of an effort to work with Commission in resolving this matter, the violation would probably not have been issued. I find that the Commission was not arbitrary or capricious in this matter and that its actions were reasonable and measured in light of the circumstances.

Order

The respondent is found guilty of charge number 1, and ordered to pay to the Department a TOTAL FINE of $ 1,000 as follows:

Charge 1: $ 1,000.

This constitutes the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge.

______

Kirk M. Miller

Administrative Law Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge is approved.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Commission.

______

Nancy J. Schindler

Deputy Director of Adjudication

cc: Ellen D. Ryan

NY City Business Integrity Commission

N.Y.C. Department of Consumer Affairs ¨ 66 John Street-11th Floor ¨ New York, N.Y. 10038 ¨ (212) 361-7770

Website address: www.nyc.gov/consumers