Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY vs. CARMELINA DENUR, 77-001065 (1977)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-001065 Visitors: 32
Judges: DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 1977
Summary: Whether the license of the Respondent, Carmelina Denur, should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a salon registration certificate.Respondent had salon set-up in her home, but did not engage in operating a salon for profit. Recommend dismissal because not technically a salon.
77-1065.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 77-1065

)

CARMELINA DENUR, )

)

Respondent. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


Pursuant to notice an administrative hearing was held before Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, at Room 821, Broward County Courthouse, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 00 the 23rd day of June, 1977, beginning at 4:15 p.m.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire

LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752

Tallahassee, Florida 32302


For Respondent: Carmelina Denur

5295 Southwest 8th Court Margate, Florida 33063


ISSUE


Whether the license of the Respondent, Carmelina Denur, should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended for operating a cosmetology salon without a salon registration certificate.


FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. The inspector for the Petitioner, State Board of Cosmetology, entered a large utility room at the home of Respondent and found therein a cosmetology station with the usual mirrors, chairs , desks and cosmetology supplies, including an appointment book near the telephone. At the time of the visit of the inspector on May 27. 1977, the Respondent, Carmelina Debur, was doing a comb-out. Another woman was sitting in a chair in the area. The inspector determined that the Respondent was operating a beauty salon in her home without a registration and wrote a violation notice.


  2. The Respondent contended: that she had been retired six months from her job as a cosmetologist and that the furnishings for a salon in her home were for the benefit of her relatives and close friends and that she was not operating a beauty salon in her home. She stated that the area was a residential area and that her uncle gave her the salon equipment when he remodeled his store, and

    that she bought the cosmetology supplies inasmuch as she had a license and could buy it for personal use. She testified that she received no money from anyone and was not conducting a business in the beauty salon area of her home.


  3. There was no testimony or other evidence to show that the Respondent was in fact operating a beauty salon in her home.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


  4. Respondent was charged with the violation of Section 477.02(4), Florida Statutes, which states:


"It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to operate a cosme- tology salon without first obtaining a license from the board. The board shall cause each salon to be inspected from time to time to ascertain the degree of compliance with this chapter and the rules pursuant thereto promulgated by the board. Each cosmetology salon shall be under the direct supervision of a

registered master cosmetologist who shall be present in such salon at all reasonable times. Registered cosmetologist may be employed in such salons, on the condition that no more than five registered cosme- tologists may be so employed under the supervision of any one registered master cosmetologist. If more than one registered master cosmetologist is employed in a particular salon, each registered master cosmetologist may directly supervise no more than five registered cosmetologists."


Respondent was not operating a beauty salon.


Respondent is charged with violation of Regulation 22F-3.01, Florida Administrative Code, which requires a certificate to operate a beauty salon.


The evidence does not show that the Respondent was in fact operating a beauty salon and therefore needed no certificate.


RECOMMENDATION


Dismiss the complaint.


DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.


DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675


COPIES FURNISHED:


Clifford L. Davis, Esquire LaFace & Baggett, P.A. Post Office Box 1752

Tallahassee, Florida 32302


Carmelina Denur

5295 S.W. 8th Court Margate, Florida 33063


Docket for Case No: 77-001065
Issue Date Proceedings
Oct. 06, 1977 Final Order filed.
Aug. 17, 1977 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 77-001065
Issue Date Document Summary
Aug. 29, 1977 Agency Final Order
Aug. 17, 1977 Recommended Order Respondent had salon set-up in her home, but did not engage in operating a salon for profit. Recommend dismissal because not technically a salon.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer