210-19 Richland Avenue in Hollis Hills. Image Credit: Google Maps.
Worker on a Queens jobsite cited for working on plumbing installation without a license. The Department of Buildings performed a safety inspection of a worksite at 210-19 Richland Avenue in Hollis Hills, Queens, on December 1, 2020, and found respondent Khalim Sharipov, along with two other workers, engaged in plumbing work. The workers were on a scaffold with tools including a gas torch, tape measure, and copper fittings and copper piping. Buildings saw Sharipov and another worker cleaning and preparing piping for installation, while the third worker was soldering piping with the gas torch.
Buildings cited Sharipov for violating the City’s Administrative Code, which requires all plumbing work to be done by a licensed master plumber or someone working under the direct supervision of a licensed master plumber. The master plumber of record was not present during the inspection.
At a telephone hearing on January 25, 2022, Sharipov argued that the work he was observed doing was not plumbing work, but only cleaning the worksite. In support of the argument Sharipov said that no pictures submitted by Buildings showed him doing any plumbing work. Buildings maintained that Shapirov was cleaning and preparing piping for installation. This, they argued, was part of the installation process, and therefore fell under the Administrative Code’s definition of plumbing work. The OATH hearing officer sustained the violation.
On appeal, Shapirov reiterated his argument that he was only cleaning the worksite, and added that, even if he had been preparing the pipes for installation as Buildings had contended, Buildings had failed to demonstrate how that would be considered plumbing work.
The OATH Appeals Board affirmed the hearing officer’s decision regarding the credibility of the observations made by the inspector from Buildings, and the finding that such work fell under the Code’s definition of plumbing work because it was, “necessary and incidental to the ‘installation’ of plumbing at the premises.”
The owner of the property was cited for expired permits and the master plumber of record was given a violation for allowing unlicensed plumbers to perform work on the site. Shapirov was fined of $5,000.
By: Christopher Kipiniak (Christopher is a CityLaw intern and a New York Law School student, Class of 2024.)
DOB v. Khalim Sharipov, OATH Appeal No. 2200230 (April 28, 2022).
