359 DOS 09

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

-------------------------------------------------------X

In the Matter of the Complaint of

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DIVISION OF LICENSING SERVICES,

                                                Complainant,                                      DECISION

                        -against-

VALENTINA IGLICKI

                                                Respondents.

-------------------------------------------------------X

            The above matter was previously adjourned at the request the respondent’s counsel. The respondent discharged the attorney upon discovering he made a second adjournment request without her permission.

            The above matter was heard by the undersigned, Ziedah F. Giovanni, on December 15, 2008 at the office of the Department of State located at 123 William Street, New York, New York.

            The respondent, having been advised of her rights, chose to appear pro se.

            The complainant was represented by David Mossberg, Esq.

 COMPLAINT

            The complaint alleges the respondent demonstrated untrustworthiness and/or incompetency by permitting and/or acquiescing in unlicensed real estate activity, and by providing false and misleading information during the course of a Department of State investigation.

    FINDINGS OF FACT

            1) Notice of hearing, together with a copy of the complaint, was served on the respondent by certified and regular mail.

            2) Valentina Iglicki is licensed as a limited liability company broker representing G K Realty of Bay Ridge (an assumed name of Golden Key Realty LLC) . G K Realty is located at 368 93^rd Street, Suite 1R, Brooklyn, New York (State’s Ex. 2).

            3) Christopher M. Ferrer is licensed under the sponsorship of G K Realty of Bay Ridge at 378 93^rd Street, Suite 1R, Brooklyn, NY 11209. There is no record of Chris Smith being licensed as a real estate salesperson or broker from January 1, 2002 through the present. (State’s Ex. 2)

            4) The tribunal takes judicial notice of the fact that Alan Iglicki, the respondent’s husband, is not licensed as a real estate salesperson or broker.

             5) Prior to becoming a licensed real estate salesperson, and while working as a part-time employee for the respondent, Mr. Chris Ferrer listed apartments for rent on the website craigslist.org under the name Chris Smith (State’s Ex. 4). While the respondent admitted asking Chris Ferrer to post listings for G K Realty on Craigslist, she denied giving him permission to attach his name to apartment listings. She testified that she was also not aware he was using the name Chris Smith. The respondent assigned Mr. Ferrer duties including showing apartments available for rent, taking pictures of properties, listing apartments rentals, posting signs and performing data entry tasks. The respondent admitted she did not supervise Chris Ferrer closely because of the amount of time she was required to be out of the office. She reported to the investigator that Chris Ferrer worked for G K Realty as a part-time employee for two years.

            6) Ms. Kathleen Wedemeyer, the respondent’s former client and the daughter of a former employee, testified that while her father was working for G K Realty, she visited the office and met Mr. Ferrer. She testified Mr. Ferrer told her he showed apartments and collected money for G K Realty. The respondent submitted a written statement reporting she allowed Chris Smith to show apartments, but did not allow him to work with applications or money (State’s Ex. 5). The respondent testified that she is the only one that processes applications and collects money for G K Realty.

Ms. Wedemeyer testified that Mr. Alan Iglicki showed her and her father an apartment at 119 Carlton Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York (hereinafter “Carlton Avenue apartment”). She testified that Mr. Iglicki also showed them several other apartments in addition to the Carlton Avenue apartment. In a video taken during the showing of the Carlton Avenue apartment(State’s Ex 13), Mr. Iglicki can be seen and heard. The respondent does not appear in the video. The respondent testified that her husband only came to the showing of the Carton Avenue apartment because Mr. Wedemeyer needed assistance video taping the apartment for his wife who was not present, but wanted to see the apartment before a decision was made. The respondent testified she could not recall whether her husband visited any other properties with clients.

            7) Mr. Iglicki created business cards identifying himself as an “associate broker” for G K Realty (State’s Ex. 7) The respondent testified that she was aware her husband printed the business cards when she initially opened the office for business. She testified Mr. Iglicki did not act as a real estate salesperson or broker, and that the entire box of cards was destroyed except for the one card left on his desk.

            8) On November 19, 2007, the respondent entered into a rental agreement with Mr. Mohamed Hagazi (hereinafter “Hagazi transaction”) (State’s Ex. 9). By letter dated June 5, 2008, Mr. Hagazi, submitted an unsworn statement reporting that Mr. Iglicki (referred to in the letter as “Mr. Alan”) showed him two apartments and collected fees from him. He claimed Mr. Iglicki mislead him about the rent for the apartment that is the subject of the rental agreement (State’s Ex. 8). Mr. Hagazi submitted two receipts he claims were given to him by Mr. Iglicki (State’s Ex. 10). The receipt dated December 27, 2007, for $1800.00, indicates the fee represents, in part, a commission.

             In response to a request for information from Department of State Investigator Ziyan Shi, the respondent submitted receipts related to the Hagazi transaction. The receipts submitted by the respondent are clearly signed “V. Iglicki” (State’s Ex. 9). The receipts submitted by Mr. Hagazi have a signature that is illegible and unlike the “V. Iglicki” signature on the respondent’s receipts (State’s Ex. 10). The respondent’s receipts were also marked with different identification numbers than those provided by Mr. Hagazi. The respondent testified that she told Investigator Shi from the outset that the original receipts were lost, and that she was giving him receipts created for tax purposes only. Investigator Shi’s testimony was in direct contradiction to the respondent’s. He claimed the respondent initially indicated the receipts were copies of the originals given to Mr. Hagazi . Investigator Shi testified the respondent indicated the receipts were re-creations only after he confronted her about the discrepancies. The receipt dated December 27, 2007, for $1800.00, submitted by the respondent, indicates it represents the broker’s fee.

            9) On October 3, 2007, the respondent entered into a “Rental Commission Agreement” with Ms. Danielle Brigidi (hereinafter the Brigidi transaction). Ms. Brigidi submitted two receipts documenting the payment of an application fee, deposit and commission. The Brigidi transaction receipts submitted by the respondent (State’s Ex. 12) did not match the receipts submitted by Ms. Brigidi. Both of the respondent’s receipts were clearly signed “V. Iglicki.”, and appeared to be written in the same handwriting. One receipt is marked with the number “040073" in the right hand corner. The other is marked with the number “026846" in the same location.

            Only one of the receipts Ms. Brigidi submitted was signed “V. Iglicki”. The other is signed illegibly, in a handwriting that appears to be different from the other receipt. One receipt is marked with the number “040073" in the right hand corner. The other receipt has no identification number on the face of it. Although both the respondent and Ms. Brigidi submitted one receipt numbered “040073", there are several small differences in the receipts that make it clear one is not a copy of the other. The respondent testified that she indicated to the investigator that these receipts were created for tax purposes after the original receipts were lost. The investigator testified he was not given this explanation until after the respondent was confronted about the discrepancies.

                                                OPINION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

            I - As the party which instituted the hearing, the burden is on the complainant to prove, by substantial evidence, the truthfulness of the charges contained in the complaint. State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) §306(1). Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind could accept as supporting a conclusion or ultimate fact. Gray v. Adduci, 73 N.Y.2d 741, 536 N.Y.S.2d 40 (1988). "The question...is whether a conclusion or ultimate fact may be extracted reasonably--probatively and logically." City of Utica Board of Water Supply v. New York State Health Department, 96 A.D.2d 710, 465 N.Y.S.2d 365, 366 (1983)(citations omitted).

            II - A real estate broker who or which has an unlicensed salesperson associated with him or it is guilty of a misdemeanor, RPL §442-c, and of demonstrating incompetency. Doherty v. Cuomo, 64 AD2d 847, 407 NYS2d 337 (1978), app. dism. 45 NY2d 960, 411 NYS2d 566; Division of Licensing Services v. Fishman, 153 DOS 92. Such an association is also a violation of RPL §440-a. A real estate salesperson is a person associated with a real estate broker with the purpose of, among other things, renting or placing for rent any real property, RPL §440[3], the activities in which both Mr. Alan Iglicki and Mr. Chris Ferrer engaged in for the respondent.

            Mr. Iglicki offered to lease or rent an apartment, and collected fees on behalf of G K Realty in the Hagazi transaction. The fact that the original Hagazi transaction receipts appear to be signed by someone other than the respondent, lends support to Mr. Hagazi’s statement alleging it was the respondent’s husband who showed him apartments and collected fees that included the commission. By allowing Alan Iglicki, an unlicensed person, to act as a real estate salesperson on behalf of G K Realty, and by causing him to be compensated for his unlicensed brokerage activity, the respondent violated RPL §442-c and demonstrated incompetency. Mr. Chris Ferrer showed and listed apartments for rent for the respondent while being compensated as a part-time employee to do the same. By allowing Mr. Ferrer, an unlicensed person, to act as a real estate salesperson on behalf of G K Realty, and by causing him to be compensated for his unlicensed brokerage activity, the respondent violated RPL §442-c and demonstrated incompetency.

III - RPL §442-e[5] states:

"The secretary of state shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this article and upon complaint of any person, or on his own initiative, to investigate any violation thereof or to investigate the business, business practices and business methods of any person, firm or corporation applying for or holding a license as a real estate broker or salesman, if in the opinion of the secretary of state such investigation is warranted. Each such applicant or licensee shall be obliged, on request of the secretary of state, to supply such information as may be required concerning his or its business, business practices or business methods, or proposed business practices or methods."

            Pursuant to RPL §442-j the Secretary of State has the authority to delegate to employees of the Department of State the above powers to compel a licensee to supply information.

            The respondent’s testimony that she created new receipts for tax purposes, and informed the investigator of that fact, was not credible. Regarding the receipts related to the Brigidi transaction, the respondent apparently went through the trouble of locating and using a new receipt marked with the exact identification number in the right hand side as the original. For that particular receipt, the differences between the respondent’s re-creation and the original were apparent only under great scrutiny. This would tend to indicate that she deliberately tried to mislead the investigator by attempting to make the numbers identical. The respondent breached her duty to cooperate with the Department of State’s investigation when she submitted misleading information to Investigator Shi and, thereby, further demonstrated untrustworthiness.

            The respondent’s violations are egregious. Her testimony that she was the only one who collected fees, and that she could not recall whether her husband visited properties with clients, was not credible. Not only did she allow Mr. Iglicki to show apartments and collect fees, she paid Mr. Ferrer to show and list apartments without close supervision. Furthermore, she attempted to mislead the Department of State’s investigator by providing receipts other than copies of originals from the subject transactions. Clearly, the respondent cannot be trusted to deal fairly and honestly with the public.

                                                            DETERMINATION

            WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED THAT Valentina Iglicki has violated Real Property Law §§440-a, 442-c and 442-e[5], and has demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency, and accordingly, pursuant to Real Property Law §441-c, her license as a limited liability company broker, UID# 49IG1031344, is revoked effective May 15, 2009. She is directed to send her license certificate(s) and pocket card(s) to Norma Rosario, Customer Service Unit, Department of State, Division of Licensing Services, 80 South Swan Street, P.O. Box 22001, Albany, New York 12201-2201.

                                                                                    Ziedah F. Giovanni

                                                                              Administrative Law Judge

Dated: April 14, 2009