Case research · C091

Frank Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al

50058/2023 · New York State Supreme Court

ClosedDiscontinuedNew York
CourtNew York State Supreme Court
FiledFebruary 1, 2023
StatusClosed
OutcomeDiscontinued
Final dispositionWith prejudice
JurisdictionNew York
Pro seYes
Current / transferee court
Transferred case
Last researchedSeptember 23, 2026

About this case

Evidentiary treatment: This summarizes the plaintiff's own allegations as stated in the complaint or docket record cited below. It reflects what was filed, not a court finding, and is not a determination that the allegations are true.

Plaintiff Frank Tufano, pro se, sued the American Arbitration Association, arbitrator Sarah Thompson, opposing party Adam Starowicz, and attorney Jeffrey K. Davis, apparently seeking emergency injunctive relief (a temporary restraining order and/or stay) against the AAA arbitration then underway between Tufano and Starowicz over their joint ownership of Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC. Opposition papers characterize the filing as an attempt to circumvent adverse arbitration rulings and Tufano's own non-payment of AAA fees.

The specific causes of action pleaded and the full relief demanded are not detailed in the available record. Sourced via the opposing party's affidavit/affirmation characterizing the petition, not a direct read of it — lower confidence than sourcing drawn directly from a filed pleading.

Complaint / docket source — trellis.law ↗

Defendants

Source record

This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.

Outcome and research status

Outcome reason: A stipulation filed March 9, 2023 withdrew pending motions and discontinued all claims against Adam Starowicz, Sarah Thompson, the American Arbitration Association and Jeffrey K. Davis, Esq. with prejudice and without costs.

Research status: Source-backed

Research notes: NYSCEF Case Status: Disposed. The stipulation is signed by Frank Tufano pro se and counsel for the defendants.

Related litigation

Filing-restriction indicators

Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.

StrongNew state complaint against same defendants filed one day after federal jurisdictional dismissal

The day after C099 was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Tufano filed C091 in Westchester Supreme Court against the same four defendants named in C099: the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson. C091 (together with C090) was discontinued with prejudice by stipulation on Mar. 9, 2023.

Filed one day after C099's jurisdictional dismissal; later discontinued with prejudice by stipulation alongside C090
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗

Chronology events

Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.

New state complaint filed

The next day, Tufano filed C091 in Westchester Supreme Court against the same four defendants named in C099: AAA, Jeffrey Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson.

Starowicz / arbitration / Davis chronology · Cross-forum chronologySource — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗
State cases discontinued with prejudice

Stipulations filed March 9, 2023 discontinued Tufano's claims in C090 and C091 with prejudice.

Starowicz / arbitration / Davis chronology · Court-filed stipulationsSource — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗
Later Davis lawsuit filed

Tufano later filed C094 against Jeffrey Davis in Westchester Supreme Court.

Starowicz / arbitration / Davis chronology · Docket chronologySource — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗
Later Davis case dismissed

The court dismissed C094, finding no cognizable claim within its subject-matter jurisdiction and explaining that a state court could not review or vacate federal court orders; the decision expressly identified C091 as related.

Starowicz / arbitration / Davis chronology · Court decisionSource — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗

Secondary sources

Commentary from former counsel or other secondary sources is retained separately from court findings and primary-source records.

Arbitration Clauses – Are They Enforceable?February 10, 2023

Davis recounts the Starowicz/Tufano business arbitration, reproduces language from an arbitrator stating that a preliminary hearing occurred Oct. 25, 2021 and that a request to pause/stay was addressed by email around Apr. 5, 2022, and reports that Starowicz filed a motion to dismiss C090 on Jan. 9, 2023. The article later notes the state case was settled and claims voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

Evidentiary treatment: Use for leads, chronology and quoted arbitration context only. Davis's characterizations (for example that arguments were meritless or that Tufano tried to circumvent arbitration) are not court findings unless independently corroborated.

Jeffrey Davis · Davis Cantor · Former-counsel blog / secondary sourceSecondary source — daviscantor.com ↗

Related video research

Each video has its own research page with its verified publish date, timestamped statements and case links. A researched link between a video and a docket record is not a finding of causation in either direction.

Cite this page
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Frank Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al (50058/2023)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/50058-2023-frank-tufano-v-american-arbitration-association-et-al/