Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
50710/2022 · New York State Supreme Court
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, proceeding pro se, alleges a breach of oral contract against Adam Starowicz, a fellow member/manager of Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC, arising from the same business relationship separately at issue in a pending American Arbitration Association proceeding between the two men. Starowicz's counsel represented to the court, in moving against the suit, that the claims duplicate matters already raised in that arbitration.
The available record does not specify further factual detail or the damages demanded. Sourced via the defense's memorandum of law characterizing the claim, not a direct read of the complaint — lower confidence than sourcing drawn directly from a filed pleading.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome reason: A stipulation filed March 9, 2023 discontinued all of Frank Tufano's claims against Adam Starowicz with prejudice and without costs.
Research status: Source-backed
Research notes: NYSCEF Case Status: Disposed. The stipulation bears Frank Tufano's pro se signature.
Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
C089 (Frankie's Free Range Meat LLC et al. v. Starowicz) was dismissed without prejudice on Oct. 26, 2022 after the court found no affidavit of service or other filing moving the action toward judgment, and a request to restore/stay arbitration was denied as moot. On Dec. 20, 2022, Tufano filed C090 against Adam Starowicz in the same court.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano filed C090 against Adam Starowicz in Westchester Supreme Court.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Davis reports that Starowicz filed a motion to dismiss C090 on Jan. 9, 2023, arguing that the dispute belonged in the pending arbitration.
Source — daviscantor.com ↗Two days after the reported motion to dismiss C090, Tufano filed C099 in S.D.N.Y. against the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey K. Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Stipulations filed March 9, 2023 discontinued Tufano's claims in C090 and C091 with prejudice.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Commentary from former counsel or other secondary sources is retained separately from court findings and primary-source records.
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.
Secondary source — daviscantor.com ↗Public statements are displayed separately from court findings. Quotations are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted. The Strong / Moderate / Context tier is this project’s research classification of how closely a statement bears on the documented filing patterns — it is not a judicial finding. Any second badge names the filing-restriction factor the statement’s own words describe; it records what the speaker said, not that a court found it.
How quotations are marked: An ellipsis (…) inside a quotation marks words left out between two passages of the same video, which can sit some minutes apart. The omitted wording is not reproduced here, and a clip on the statement supercut plays the whole span from the quotation’s first word to its last — so it includes the omitted material. Quotations without an ellipsis are continuous speech.
These quotations can no longer be checked at their source. Every quotation on this site was transcribed from the speaker’s own YouTube channel. That channel was removed in October 2026; on 23 October 2026 all 980 catalogued video ids returned “not found”, and the channel address itself no longer resolves. YouTube’s own basis for removing it is not part of any record this project can verify, so none is asserted here. Nothing was withdrawn by this project.
What survives is the evidence, not the link. The verbatim caption transcript each quotation was read from was archived, dated, at the time the video was catalogued, and the timestamp on each card is the moment in that transcript where the words appear. The transcripts are held unaltered and are not republished. What a reader can no longer do is open the original and hear it, and nothing on this site can restore that. Seventy-four statements — those whose own words name a core filing-restriction factor — survive as clips in this project’s own compilation, and those cards link into it at the right moment. Nothing else is re-hosted. See Methodology.
what's going on guys I'm here with my business partner Adam for any of you unfamiliar we recently launched Frankie's free-range meat our goal to bring you high quality nutrient-dense animal foods
This is the relationship at the centre of dispute DSP020 stated in explicit legal-ish terms — "my business partner" — and tied by name to "Frankie's free-range meat". disputes.csv describes DSP020 as "the Frankie's Free Range Meat arbitration dispute, naming Adam Starowicz, the American Arbitration Association and Jeffrey Davis"; aliases.csv holds Adam Starowicz → D0003, and lawsuits.csv holds C090 Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz (filed 2022-12-20, Closed). This statement is published 1,344 days before C090 was filed (2019-04-16 → 2022-12-20, differenced in code). It also dates the launch: "we recently launched". ⚠ Only the first name is spoken; the surname never appears in clean form anywhere in the track (see the next quote). ⚠ This is scripted pitch copy, not a spontaneous statement, and the word "partner" in marketing copy is not evidence of a legal partnership. Offered as an adjacency to verify against the arbitration record, not as a finding about the parties' legal relationship. No court, case, filing, lawyer or dispute is named anywhere in this video. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 / C090 — tentative, unconfirmed; first name plus business name only.
Source removed.
I'm sure most of you guys know Adam from the past two videos both of us have been killing ourselves in one way of another me not sleeping filming videos every day coming down to the kitchen a couple times a week Adam might as well bring his bed down here and live here at this point
The only first name spoken here, "Adam", matches Adam Starowicz, recorded in aliases.csv as canonical defendant D0003 and the named party in C090 (Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz), one of the three docket records in dispute DSP020, whose own description in disputes.csv is "the Frankie's Free Range Meat arbitration dispute". This statement dates the working relationship inside that business and describes its division of labour, published 1,134 days before C090 was filed (2019-11-12 → 2022-12-20, differenced in code). ⚠ The surname is never spoken anywhere in this transcript — the link rests on a bare first name plus the business context, and a bare first name is the documented worst case for a false match. It is offered as an adjacency to verify, not as an identification. No court, case, filing, lawyer or dispute is referenced anywhere in this video. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 / C090 — tentative, unconfirmed; first-name-only, no surname spoken.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:56 in the archived transcript.
you know Mr starowitz I would say I don't enjoy having to deal with this but one of my viewers was kind enough to make a website in your memory on adamsterowids.com they have the privilege of seeing your Instagram your LinkedIn profile a brief summary of what you did and those two videos you want to take and down oh so badly
The opposing party in a then-live New York action is addressed by name on camera, and the channel publicises a website a viewer built at his name which aggregates his social-media profiles. This is the grievance and the party, not a filing — no court, docket or suit is mentioned. ⚠ Surfaced for later review as ambient harassment amplified by the channel: the action is attributed to a viewer, the channel names the resulting domain to an audience. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — the party is aliases.csv D0003, tracked in C089, C090, C091 and C099. The link here is to the party, not to a case: no case is named.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:54 in the archived transcript.
I'm paying around 3 000 [= $3,000] a month which Probably sounds crazy to you guys but in New York it was actually a very very good deal at the time
C090 (Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz, No. 50710/2022) was filed in WESTCHESTER COUNTY Supreme Court on 2022-12-20 — the source_url in src/data/lawsuits.csv carries courtType=Westchester%20County%20Supreme%20Court. Forty-four days earlier (2022-11-06 → 2022-12-20, computed in code), this video states he is living "north of the city … kind of by the Connecticut border" at ~$3,000/month, that it is "a temporary living situation", and that he is "a lot closer to work". Westchester County is the New York county immediately north of New York City abutting Connecticut. That is a residence-to-venue corroboration: it supplies the ordinary, non-sinister reason C090 was commenced in Westchester rather than in New York County or in Pennsylvania, which the docket alone does not explain. It describes no filing conduct, names no party, and predicts no suit. Possible case/dispute link: C090 / DSP020, as venue context only, and tentative. ⚠ The link is inferential — he never says "Westchester", never mentions a court, and never mentions the dispute. It rests on matching a spoken region to a docketed venue. Direction trap 5 applies to the party side: no person is named.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:35 in the archived transcript.
that however I am going broke so this is more of like a temporary living situation
A first-person, dated statement of personal financial distress 44 days before he sued his co-member of Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC over an oral contract arising from that business. It sits at the head of the same arc this slice documents: "I am going broke" at −44 days (this file), "liquidate everything get everything out of here" at −21 days (7ekYVjJdjgk), and the meat business being carried by the other four storefronts at +2 days (96NLrUKO0E8). The statement describes no filing conduct and names no person, no LLC and no dispute. ⚠ Note also that the phrase sits beside an admission that he took the place partly for a wrong reason ("I got this because I thought it was going to be lower radiation EMF which I wasn't so correct about") and in a video whose closing joke is about "living in his car in LA" — self-deprecating framing is available and is not excluded. Possible case/dispute link: C090 / DSP020, subject-matter and chronology only, tentative. No party is named.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:53 in the archived transcript.
sale too guys I think we're going to put it at seven dollars a bottle for everything kind of just liquidate everything get everything out of here and then maybe we'll start off with a lower volume of product that's a little more suitable
C090 (Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz, Westchester County Supreme Court, No. 50710/2022, filed 2022-12-20) pleads breach of an oral contract against a fellow member/manager of Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC, arising from the business relationship then also before an American Arbitration Association proceeding. Twenty-one days before that filing (2022-11-29 → 2022-12-20, computed in code), the businesses at the centre of it are being wound down in stock terms on camera: site-wide discounts across all five storefronts, water kefir cut to roughly half price, the organ-supplement line "already kind of been on liquidation", the enzyme blend on "a very very steep discount", Frankie's Naturals at half off, and the stated plan to "liquidate everything get everything out of here" and restart at "a lower volume of product". This describes no filing conduct whatsoever and names no person, no LLC, no co-member, no arbitration and no suit. It is recorded because it dates the commercial condition of the C090 entity to the −21-day point. Possible case/dispute link: C090 / DSP020, subject-matter only and tentative. The link rests on the businesses being the subject of both, not on anything said. ⚠ No party is named anywhere in the track, so direction trap 5 applies on the person side and no party link is licensed. ⚠ A seasonal-holiday-sale reading is also fully available on the face of the transcript — he frames the discounts as a Black Friday/holiday promotion running "through the entire holiday season" — and nothing here excludes it. Both readings are recorded; neither is asserted over the other.
Source removed. Quoted at 04:56 in the archived transcript.
so organ supplements as well as Frankie syringe Foods [= Frankie's Free Range Foods] Wi-Fi shielding Frankie's Naturals has really helped me kept the meat business going so not only are you guys supporting me this is really going towards you know eventually getting the processing plants the dairy all these other creative and unique products to help you guys improve your health
C090 (Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz, Westchester County Supreme Court, No. 50710/2022, filed 2022-12-20) pleads breach of an oral contract against a fellow member/manager of Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC, arising from the same business relationship then before an American Arbitration Association proceeding. This video went up 2 days after that filing (2022-12-20 → 2022-12-22, computed in code) and is a statement about the financial condition of exactly that business — the meat company is not self-sustaining and is being carried by the four sibling storefronts. It describes no filing conduct and names no person, no LLC co-member, no arbitration and no suit. Recorded because it dates the commercial state of the entity at the centre of C090 to the closest post-filing point in this slice, not because it references the case: it does not. Possible case/dispute link: C090 / DSP020, subject-matter only and tentative. The link rests on the entity (Frankie's Free Range Meat) being the subject of both, not on anything said. ⚠ No party is named. Direction trap 5 applies to the person side — the co-member is never mentioned, so no party link is licensed.
Source removed. Quoted at 07:02 in the archived transcript.
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.
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz (50710/2022)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/50710-2022-frank-tufano-v-adam-starowicz/