Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs. GEORGE PLOMARITIS, 88-005200 (1988)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-005200 Visitors: 33
Judges: JAMES E. BRADWELL
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 1989
Summary: The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent has been disciplined by a local government, the City of Tampa, in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes.Whether respondent's license has been disciplined by a local regulatory agency warranting disciplinary sanctions by petitioner.
88-5200

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ) LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 88-5200

)

GEORGE PLOMARITIS, )

)

Respondent. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on February 10, 1989, in Tampa, Florida. The parties were granted leave through February 17, 1989, to submit proposed memoranda. Petitioner has submitted a proposed recommended order which is substantially incorporated herein.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Jack M. Larkin, Esquire

806 Jackson Street

Tampa, Florida 33602 For Respondent: No appearance 1/

ISSUE PRESENTED


The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent has been disciplined by a local government, the City of Tampa, in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes.


BACKGROUND


On or about November 30, 1987, Petitioner flied an Administrative Complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent had been disciplined by a local government as follows: permitting privileges were suspended during 1987 in Tampa, Florida.


Subsequent to the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent requested a formal hearing by executing an Election of Rights form. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing.


At the hearing, Petitioner called one witness and introduced two exhibits, which were received in evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT


Based upon my observation of the witness and his demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence presented and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found:


  1. During times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CG C006397.


  2. Petitioner is the State agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida.


  3. On May 5, 1987, Respondent was disciplined by the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa, and thereafter, on August 13, 1987, Respondent's license was revoked based on the determination that Respondent was guilty of violating City of Tampa codes. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2.).


  4. Respondent's disciplinary action by the City of Tampa was reviewed by Petitioner and based on the May 5, 1987 suspension of Respondent's license, Petitioner found probable cause against Respondent on June 11, 1987.


  5. As stated, Respondent failed to appear to contest or otherwise refute the fact that the Unified Construction Trades Board of Tampa took disciplinary action against his license.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


  6. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this action pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.


  7. The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.


  8. The authority of the Petitioner is derived from Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.


  9. Section 489.129, Florida Statutes authorizes the Board to revoke, suspend, or otherwise discipline the license of a contractor for any of the following violations of Section 489.129:


    (1)(i) Disciplinary action by any municipality or county, which action shall be reviewed by the state board before the state board takes any disciplinary action of its own.


  10. Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence herein which established that Respondent has been disciplined by the City of Tampa, Florida, by its Unified Construction Trades Board.

RECOMMENDATION


Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that:


Petitioner's certified general contractor's license number CG C006397 be suspended for a period of one (1) year from the entry of the Board's final order.


DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.


JAMES E. BRADWELL

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675


Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1989.


ENDNOTE


1/ Although properly noticed, Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, failed to appear at the hearing as scheduled.


COPIES FURNISHED:


Jack Larkin, Esquire 806 Jackson Street

Tampa, Florida 33602


George Plomaritis

507 South Willow Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606


Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing

Board

111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202


Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750


Docket for Case No: 88-005200
Issue Date Proceedings
Mar. 21, 1989 Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 88-005200
Issue Date Document Summary
Aug. 10, 1989 Agency Final Order
Mar. 21, 1989 Recommended Order Whether respondent's license has been disciplined by a local regulatory agency warranting disciplinary sanctions by petitioner.
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