STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
259 DOS 01
------------------------------------------------X
CONROY HARRIS,
Applicant for a License as a Private Investigator,
-against- DECISION
DIVISION OF LICENSING SERVICES,
Objector.
------------------------------------------------X
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TRIBUNAL
123 William Street, New York, NY 10038
Held: April 24, 2001
Felix Neals, Supervising Administrative Law Judge
----------------------------------------
Applicant, Mr. Conroy Harris, 394 Montgomery Street, Apt. 2L, Brooklyn, NY 11225, represented himself.
The objector, the Division of Licensing Services, was represented by Mr. Richard Drew, License Investigator III, 84 Holland Avenue, Albany, NY 12208.
ISSUE
The applicant requested this action under the provisions of General Business Law, §79, to review the Division of Licensing Services' decision to deny his application for a license as a private investigator. The State denies the application on the ground that the applicant failed to prove legal experience sufficient to qualify for a license as a private investigator under the provisions of General Business Law, §72(1), and 19 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, §172(1).
PROCEDURAL
The tribunal granted the applicant's request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for January 11, 2001, based on applicant's statement that his attorney was unable to attend the scheduled hearing.
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
Evidence admitted include the following:
A. EXHIBITS.
1. Pleadings consisting of notice of hearing, the Division of Licensing Services' letters that deny the application, and the applicant's written request for a hearing.
2. Private investigator license application.
3. Documents that relate to the applicant's experience.
4. Correspondence between the applicant and the Division of Licensing Services.
5. Domestic return receipt of the United States Postal Service.
6. Notice of adjournment.
B. WITNESS. Mr. Conroy Harris testified in support of his application.
FACTS
By substantial evidence, I find the following facts.
Under the equivalent position and experience provisions of General Business Law, §72(1), Mr. Conroy Harris filed an application with the Division of Licensing Services for a license as a private investigator. The State denied the application on the ground that the applicant failed to prove legal experience sufficient to qualify for a license as a private investigator under the provisions of General Business Law, §72(1), and 19 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, §172(1).
Mr. Harris bases his application on equivalent experience gained in the duration of time from October 1996 to December 1999 while working as an unlicensed, independent contractor for a fee for three, different employers.
From October 1996 to December 1998, for Chaos, a nightclub in New York City, Mr. Harris worked part-time, about twenty hours a week. He conducted investigations to obtain information about employees of Chaos; and he performed protection for both customers and property of Chaos.
From May 1998 to December 1999, E. Lyn Harris employed Mr. Harris both as a bodyguard and to perform investigations to obtain information about employees. Mr. Harris worked weekends, Saturdays and Sundays, about eight hours daily in Detroit and primarily in New York City.
From January 1997 to December 1999, Elite Jet Group Company employed Mr. Harris full-time, Mondays through Fridays, in Miami, Florida. Mr. Harris both investigated the background of both employees and potential customers and supervised a staff of bodyguards.
Each employer paid Mr. Harris's fee in cash; Mr. Harris's individual income tax returns for the years 1996 through 1998 report a total, collective income of $26,800.
OPINION
The initial question is whether the applicant engaged in the business of a licensed private investigator as an unlicensed, independent contractor for more than one employer concurrently. He did.
General Business Law, §71(1), define a private investigator as a person who "...for hire, reward or for any consideration whatsoever...[conducts] any investigation, or investigations for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to any of the following matters, notwithstanding the fact that other functions and services may also be performed for fee, hire or reward...the identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation or character of any person, group of persons, association, organization, society, other groups of persons, firm or corporation; the credibility of witnesses or other persons; the whereabouts or missing persons; the location or recovery of lost or stolen property; the causes and origin of, or responsibility for fires, or libels, or losses, or accidents, or damage or injuries to real property...or with reference to the conduct, honesty, efficiency, loyalty or activities of employees, agents, contractors, and sub-contractors; or the securing of evidence to be used before any authorized investigation committee, board of award, board of arbitration, or in the trial of civil or criminal cases...."
Mr. Harris engaged in the business of a licensed private investigator when for a fee he conducted investigations for purpose of obtaining information about employees of three employers.
As an unlicensed, independent contractor, Mr. Harris held himself out for employment to more than one employer and concurrently engaged in activities regulated by General Business Law, Article 7. Consequently, the private investigative experience gained by Mr. Harris as an unlicensed, independent contractor is unlawful and does not qualify as equivalent experience (General Business Law, §§71[1], 72[1], and 83; 19 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, §172.1).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and opinion, I conclude:
The applicant failed to prove that he possesses the qualifying experience required for a license as a private investigator (General Business Law, §72(1); State Administrative Procedure Act, §306; 19 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations, §172.1).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, opinion, conclusion of law, and under General Business Law, §79:
I ORDER that the decision of the Division of Licensing Services to deny the application of Mr. Conroy Harris for a license as a private investigator is confirmed.
SO ORDERED: April 25, 2001
Felix Neals
Supervising Administrative Law Judge