Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
55177/2021 · 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.
Plaintiffs Frank Tufano (alleged 51% member) and Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC pled three causes of action against Adam Starowicz (the LLC's 49% member and Tufano's co-managing member): breach of the company's Operating Agreement, breach of fiduciary duty (brought derivatively on the LLC's behalf), and a demand for an accounting.
The verified complaint alleges that after the two began the meat business together in 2019 on a 50/50 profit-split arrangement, Starowicz embezzled roughly $5,000 per week for about five months, let the facility deteriorate (a broken refrigeration system, a maggot infestation in the sewer trap, and roughly $10,000 in spoiled product thrown out), let rent and other bills lapse over $50,000 into arrears, paid employees "under the table" without withholding taxes, and cut Tufano out of company records, management, and profit distributions while paying himself de facto dividends and excessive compensation. It seeks damages "to be determined at trial," an accounting, and other relief. Part of the same DSP020 Starowicz dispute cluster as C004, C090, C091, and C094. The complaint was filed by attorney Jeffrey K. Davis as Tufano's own counsel — the same Davis later named as a defendant in C099/C091 and sued for malpractice in C004/C094.
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: The court found no affidavit of service or other filing moving the case toward judgment, found no basis to extend the relevant deadlines, and noted that the LLC could not proceed pro se. The action was dismissed without prejudice and the motion to restore/stay arbitration was denied as moot.
Research status: Source-backed
Research notes: NYSCEF Case Status: Disposed. Plaintiffs originally filed through counsel; a September 23, 2022 consent-to-change-attorney filing allowed them to proceed pro se.
Findings recorded only where they are tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Record labels distinguish final orders/opinions, reports and recommendations, non-final orders, and tentative/indexed ruling records.
Court found no affidavit of service or other filing moving the action toward judgment, found no basis to extend deadlines, noted that the LLC could not proceed pro se, dismissed the action without prejudice, and denied the motion to restore/stay arbitration as moot.
October 26, 2022 ruling source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Frankie's Free Range Meat LLC and others filed a New York Supreme Court action against Adam Starowicz.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗C089 was dismissed without prejudice after the court found no affidavit of service or other filing moving the action toward judgment; a request to restore/stay arbitration was denied as moot.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Tufano filed C090 against Adam Starowicz in Westchester Supreme Court.
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.
i'm gonna have adam eat this beef i'll let you guys know how it was because i'm not uh i'm not a fan
The batch addendum asks for any appearance of the forename-only "adam" earlier than the two batch-56 sightings (2021-01-25 and 2021-02-02), because Frankies Free Range Meat LLC et al v. Adam Starowicz (C089, N.Y. Sup. Ct.) was filed 2021-04-22 and pleads the breakdown of that business relationship. This is such an appearance and it is earlier than either batch-56 sighting: computed in code as plain date differences, 2020-11-12 → 2021-04-22 is 161 days, against 87 days for 2021-01-25 and 79 days for 2021-02-02. The content is thin but the direction is consistent with an intact working relationship — an "adam" is close enough to the operation to be handed a competitor's steak to eat and report back on, and is referred to by forename with no introduction, as someone the audience already knows. He is not present on camera and does not speak; this is a third-person mention only. Possible case/dispute link: Unresolved, and explicitly NOT a party link. No surname is spoken anywhere in the 596 cues, and aliases.csv holds Adam Starowicz / ADAM STAROWICZ (D0003) — a bare forename cannot reach it, and §10b's bare-forename hazard applies in full (unscoped adam hits nine src/data CSVs, overwhelmingly as substrings of unrelated party rosters). Recorded as a dated adjacency to confirm, never as an identification of the C089 defendant.
Source removed. Quoted at 16:20 in the archived transcript.
i guess both myself and adam didn't really want to you know give away one of each flavor best bar because it was a lot of work it's kind of a lot of value for a product and we just launched it
The quote records joint commercial decision-making authority over a Frankie's Free-Range product between the speaker and a man he calls only "adam", at the company's New York facility, published 2020-12-15. The dataset's DSP020 cluster turns on exactly that relationship: research_notes.csv for C089 records that Adam Starowicz was the LLC's 49% member and Tufano's co-managing member, and the verified complaint in C089 (FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ, filed 2021-04-22) pleads breach of the operating agreement, breach of fiduciary duty and an accounting arising from that co-management. This video is 128 days before that filing (2020-12-15 → 2021-04-22, differenced in code), and shows the relationship functioning: the two jointly resist, then agree to, a giveaway; "adam" is also described at 1:53 as the person to check in with inside the facility and at 2:22 as the person pulling stock from the freezer. No filing conduct whatsoever is described — hence the factor — and nothing here is a statement about litigation. Its value is chronological: it dates the working relationship that DSP020 is about, from the plaintiff's own camera, before any of the six DSP020 docket records existed. ⚠ The identification is not confirmed. The transcript gives a bare first name and no surname, and §B records that bare first names collide badly with mass-defendant rosters. What supports it is not the name alone but the conjunction of name, company, facility, date and role — a co-decision-maker on Frankie's Free-Range product strategy — which is the role the C089 pleading assigns to Starowicz. Treat as probable, not established; a promotion pass should confirm the surname from another source before writing a party link. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — tentative and unconfirmed, on the first-name-plus-role basis set out above. Not asserted as a party link.
Source removed. Quoted at 07:04 in the archived transcript.
you know i do have an accountant looking at the books this might have to get another account because they're taking way too long to figure it out
This dates an accountant already engaged and already examining the books of Frankie's Free Range Meat to 2021-01-25, 87 days before the LLC sued his business partner (interval computed in code as date(2021,4,22) - date(2021,1,25) = 87 days; endpoints 2021-01-25 and 2021-04-22). It is the earliest stage of the grievance in this slice: the money is unaccounted for, an outside professional has been brought in to find out why, and the answer has not come back. No filing, lawyer, court, arbitration or threat is mentioned — this is the dispute's factual backdrop, recorded as chronology, and must not be read as a statement about litigation. Possible case/dispute link: Tentative and unconfirmed — the business is Frankie's Free Range Meat, whose LLC is plaintiff in C089 (FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ, N.Y. Sup. Ct. Westchester 55177/2021, dispute DSP020). The transcript names no case, court, docket or accountant. ⚠ Contract §9 trap 4 is unresolved: I cannot confirm from this transcript that the bookkeeping problem described here is the grievance C089 pleaded.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:24 in the archived transcript.
got the guys working right now adam's here it's about 9 15. i'll just give him an update that like we're kind of breaking even and stuff
He is filming inside the business with his partner present, introduces him by name, and briefs him on the finances as a partner rather than as a suspect — then films twelve minutes of joint planning with him. Taken with the 7:40 line ("so adam kind of gave you the gist of it"), this places the working relationship intact and cooperative 87 days before the LLC's suit against him. It states no filing conduct and must not be read as one. Possible case/dispute link: Tentative and unconfirmed — Adam word-bounded resolves in src/data/aliases.csv to the single canonical entity D0003 (Adam Starowicz), the named defendant in C089 / DSP020. ⚠ The transcript gives a forename only; no surname is spoken anywhere in the track and none appears in the description. Per addendum §B a bare forename is the collision hazard, so the identification rests on the forename co-occurring with the business, the role and the date — not on the name itself. Treat as an adjacency to confirm elsewhere, not as a party link.
Source removed. Quoted at 04:54 in the archived transcript.
i'm kind of freaking out because i don't know what's going on we have this new commercial lease we're in this new facility we were able to make enough money to save up for that new facility but now it's even i'm not down there i'm not running the operation i'm not placing orders i don't know what's going on you know it's gotten to this kind of extreme point where now i'm probably going to basically have to be hands on with everything myself
This is the grievance that later becomes the subject of a tracked action, narrated 79 days before that action was filed (interval computed in code as date(2021,4,22) - date(2021,2,2) = 79 days; endpoints 2021-02-02 and 2021-04-22). He describes money unaccounted for in a business he part-owns but does not run day to day, and an intention to take the operation over himself. No filing, threat of filing, lawyer, court or arbitration is mentioned anywhere in the video — this is the dispute's subject matter only, and it is recorded here as chronology, not as a statement about litigation. Possible case/dispute link: Tentative and unconfirmed — the business is Frankie's Free Range Meat, whose LLC is the plaintiff in C089 (FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ, N.Y. Sup. Ct. Westchester 55177/2021, filed 2021-04-22, dispute DSP020). The transcript names no case, no court and no surname; the link rests on the business name plus the forename in the next quote. ⚠ Contract §9 trap 4 applies and is unresolved: I cannot confirm from this transcript that the grievance narrated here is the grievance pleaded in C089.
Source removed. Quoted at 04:45 in the archived transcript.
i said we were breaking even uh we're not you know adam is owed a lot of money i'm owed a lot of money we had to fire our employees last week so you know me and adam are now back to the drawing board of doing everything ourselves which i'm really not happy about
79 days before he sues Adam Starowicz, he describes Adam on camera as a fellow creditor of the shared business and a continuing working partner — "adam is owed a lot of money i'm owed a lot of money … me and adam are now back to the drawing board of doing everything ourselves". That is the opposite posture to the one the later pleading takes, and it dates the relationship as still intact at 2021-02-02. It states no filing conduct of any kind and must not be read as one. Possible case/dispute link: Tentative and unconfirmed — Adam word-bounded resolves in src/data/aliases.csv to the single canonical entity D0003 (Adam Starowicz), the named defendant in C089 / DSP020. ⚠ But the transcript gives a forename only; no surname is spoken anywhere in the track or written anywhere in the description. Per addendum §B, a bare forename is exactly the collision hazard, and the identification here rests on the forename co-occurring with the business name in the same sentence, not on the name itself. Treat as an adjacency to be confirmed from another source, not as a party link.
Source removed. Quoted at 05:13 in the archived transcript.
adam is no longer with frankie's free range meet and i kind of want to keep the story quiet and use it as one of the negotiating points with the lawyers and i'll see how that does go over the next week or two but so far he's been incredibly aggressive immediately hiring a lawyer making ridiculous demands and i wouldn't be surprised if i'm going into details in a matter of days
This is a pre-filing narration of the dispute that became C089, FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Westchester, filed 2021-04-22, dispute DSP020). The video was published 2021-03-15; differencing 2021-03-15 and 2021-04-22 in code gives 38 days before that action was filed. He names the counterparty by forename only ("adam"), states that lawyers are already engaged on both sides, and says he is deliberately withholding the public account and using it "as one of the negotiating points with the lawyers" — i.e. public disclosure held back as leverage in a pre-suit negotiation. He does not announce a suit, so no filing-conduct factor applies: Threatened or prospective filing would overstate what he says. The forward-looking element is a threat to publish ("going into details in a matter of days"), not to file. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed). Supporting surfaces: aliases.csv maps both Adam Starowicz and ADAM STAROWICZ to canonical Adam Starowicz (D0003); lawsuits.csv C089 lists ADAM STAROWICZ as the sole defendant with plaintiff FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al; disputes.csv DSP020 is described as "Six docket records from the Frankie's Free Range Meat arbitration dispute, naming Adam Starowicz, the American Arbitration Association and Jeffrey Davis." The transcript supplies only the forename plus the company, so the identification rests on the company name plus the business-partner role plus the date adjacency, not on a surname.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:32 in the archived transcript.
this freeze is a goddamn [ __ ] mess i'm getting bills from a different place every week oh you owe fedex nine thousand dollars you owe this meat company twenty thousand dollars really really how much [ __ ] money went missing that i'm still owing these [ __ ] companies running this is [ __ ] stupid
Spectrum position 0.5 on the before side of the filing — the batch 55 addendum's position 0.5 examples (SYR9b0imbac 2021-04-27, vdDWpX5jcIQ 2021-06-29) both sit after C089 was filed; this one sits 9 days before it. C089 (FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ) was filed 2021-04-22; this video published 2021-04-13. Differenced in code: date(2021,4,22) - date(2021,4,13) = 9 days. What he narrates is supplier arrears plus money he says went missing while someone else was "running this" — unpaid bills arriving from multiple creditors, and an unattributed "how much money went missing". ⚠⚠ He names no person: the sentence "these companies running this" is the caption's wording and it is ambiguous — it may be a garbled "these companies, running this is stupid" (i.e. two sentences), which is how it is punctuated in the paragraph above. Do not read it as naming who was running the business. No case, party, court, lawyer or proceeding appears anywhere in this video. Possible case/dispute link: ⚠ Tentative and unconfirmed, written from the transcript alone, and weaker than a party match. Nobody is named; "business partner" is not even said here. The link rests on subject matter (arrears and missing money at the LLC) plus a 9-day lead on the filing. It is offered as a candidate chronology data point, not a case link, and a later pass must check it against what C089 actually pleads before using it.
Source removed. Quoted at 08:25 in the archived transcript.
from my former business partner which i don't really want to speak about there's some pending legal actions going on there same with the rat scumbag that we all know i wonder how he's doing with his boyfriend in texas but without going into detail into that which i really don't hope i have to that legal stuff those lawsuits when these banks look up my company they see there's you know there's a lawsuit against me and that can affect my chance of getting the loan so if these
"from my former business partner... there's some pending legal actions going on there", and "those lawsuits when these banks look up my company they see... there's a lawsuit against me and that can affect my chance of getting the loan." ⚠⚠ Direction: the lawsuit he describes runs against him. The tentative links below are drawn from the transcript alone - he names no case, no court and no docket number anywhere in the video. Possible case/dispute link: C089, C100, DSP020, DSP003 (tentative, unconfirmed)
Source removed. Quoted at 05:32 in the archived transcript.
asking other content creators content readers and lawyers for help with my kickstarter being shut down only to be ignored and shunned then countersuing these degenerates only to be jerked around by lawyers and the legal system they own
He states a filing he has already made — "then countersuing these degenerates" — and in the same sentence alleges the forum is captured: "the legal system they own". Two things make this load-bearing and both need care. First, he frames his own suit as a counter, i.e. as an answer to being sued. That bears directly on the archive's open, unresolved direction conflict (elsewhere he has described a business partner as "suing me", while C089 records him as plaintiff). This file adds a third data point and deliberately does not adjudicate it: "countersuing" is his characterisation, spoken 200 days after C089 was filed, and the referent of "these degenerates" in this sentence is the Kickstarter/plagiarism group, not any named person. Second, the tier is capped at Moderate: Filing announced or confirmed is not one of the three core factors, and no tracked case is named in the transcript, so Strong is unavailable on both counts. Note also that seeking "help... from lawyers" and being "ignored and shunned" is a pro-se-access complaint, not a court finding of anything. Possible case/dispute link: tentative and unconfirmed — most plausibly C089 / DSP020 on date proximity, and possibly the counter-posture to C100 / DSP003, but neither case, court nor party is named. Not found under a Kickstarter grievance in aliases.csv, lawsuits.csv (case_title or defendants), disputes.csv, research_notes.csv or litigation_timeline.csv.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:48 in the archived transcript.
i fired my rotten business partner last year who by the way has two very nice million dollar houses and apartments in new york and i'm still getting jerked around
Every element matches the live New York action C089 except the one that matters — he does not mention that a case exists. The immediately preceding sentence dates the business's founding to 2019, and C089's verified complaint (per research_notes.csv) pleads that the two "began the meat business together in 2019"; he says the partner was removed "last year", and C089 was filed 2021-04-22. This video published 2022-01-28 is 281 days after that filing — interval computed as a date difference between 2021-04-22 and 2022-01-28. He is "still getting jerked around" in the present tense while the suit is pending, and says nothing about it. This is the same shape the sweep has already recorded at 2022-05-10 and is a second, earlier instance of it. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 / C089 — tentative. No name, no court, no case and no proceeding is spoken; the link rests on the business, the year, and the role. ⚠ Two cautions. (1) "fired" does not match the pleaded relationship, which is a 49% member and co-managing member of an LLC, not an employee — loose speech, and it is not resolved here. (2) The separate open direction conflict in this window (a later video describing the partner as suing him, where the tracked docket has him as plaintiff) is neither supported nor contradicted by this quote: no suit is described in either direction here. Add this as evidence; do not adjudicate the conflict with it.
Source removed. Quoted at 06:30 in the archived transcript.
uh legal update all that stuff i don't know maybe i'll talk about it next week i'm just it's just too much bs going on
The single litigation-adjacent utterance in this slice, and it is a chronology datum rather than a conduct one. Published 2022-04-19, it establishes that a legal matter existed, that he considered it something his audience would already recognise from the bare words "legal update all that stuff", and that he had a settled habit of discussing it on the channel ("maybe i'll talk about it next week"). It describes no filing, announces none, threatens none, names no court, no judge, no lawyer and no party — hence No filing-conduct factor and not Strong. Its value is that the batch addendum records exactly two dockets live in this window, so a dated on-camera acknowledgement of live legal business is placeable even though it is unplaceable to a particular docket. Possible case/dispute link: tentative and unresolved between at least two candidates, deliberately not narrowed. Both dockets the batch addendum records as live on this date fit: C089 (DSP020), filed 2021-04-22 — 362 days before this video (2021-04-22 → 2022-04-19, differenced in code) and dismissed 2022-10-26, 190 days after it (2022-04-19 → 2022-10-26, differenced in code); and C100 (DSP003), filed 2020-11-07, 528 days before this video (2020-11-07 → 2022-04-19, differenced in code), in which the motion to vacate the entries of default was denied roughly three months later. ⚠ Direction trap 1 matters for the second candidate: C100 is his opponent's suit against him, not a filing by him, so even if that is what he meant this quote would be evidence of a case he is defending. Nothing in the transcript distinguishes them; no link should be written into the dataset from this video alone.
Source removed. Quoted at 11:19 in the archived transcript.
the way i look at it is i had that dirt bag stealing money from me for two years he kind of ruined everything and now it's actually been i mean almost a year and a half now since i got rid of him but we'll see
A dated, first-person account of the grievance underlying a docket that was live on the day this was published, given without any reference to the docket. The grievance shape matches closely: an insider taking money from the business over roughly two years, removed from it, with the business left damaged. The recorded case pleads breach of the operating agreement, breach of fiduciary duty brought derivatively for the LLC, and an accounting against the LLC's other managing member — the same story told as a cause of action. The timing also lines up: "almost a year and a half now since i got rid of him", measured back from the 2022-05-10 publish date, puts the removal around late 2020, and the action was filed 2021-04-22, roughly five months later. What makes it worth recording is the omission. He describes the loss, the duration, the removal and the damage, and does not say he sued anyone over it — while the suit had been on file for 383 days (2021-04-22 → 2022-05-10, differenced in code from those two dates) and had 169 days left to run before its 2022-10-26 dismissal (2022-05-10 → 2022-10-26, same method). That is a measured instance of litigation being live and unmentioned, which is why the factor is No filing-conduct factor: he reports no filing, announces none and threatens none. ⚠ Note also that "stealing money" is his characterisation of a civil grievance; no theft finding by any court is recorded, and the pleaded claims are contractual and fiduciary, not criminal. Possible case/dispute link: C089 — tentative and unconfirmed, and written on grievance shape and timing only. The transcript names no one. He says only "that dirt bag" and "him"; no name, no company, no role and no location is spoken, so this is not a name match and cannot be treated as one. The five required party-name greps over this record all returned zero (see the research notes archived for this video), which is consistent with the link being real but unnamed rather than with it being absent.
Source removed. Quoted at 07:12 in the archived transcript.
and then the business stuff too from you know my business partner stealing money having to get rid of him getting sued by rat boy in federal court now for slander just being harassed by these people for money
His own dated account of the two matters live around him in this window, and neither is a filing of his. "getting sued by rat boy in federal court" is the direction that matters: the batch addendum records C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y., filed 2020-11-07) as his opponent's suit against him, and this video is 552 days after that filing (2020-11-07 → 2022-05-13, computed in code) with the case still live — the motion to vacate the entries of default was denied that July. "my business partner stealing money" is the Starowicz/DSP020 thread, and there too the live docket, C089, is one his own company brought, filed 2021-04-22, 386 days before this video. So no filing-conduct factor applies, and that is precisely the point of recording it. ⚠ One characterisation to carry forward, checked against the pleaded record and sharpened, not contradicted. He calls C100 a suit "for slander". The court's own recital of that case's causes of action (recorded in the dataset's C100 claims summary from the November 4, 2021 order) lists Lanham Act §1125(a) and (d), New York GBL §§148 and 349, and defamation. So a defamation count does exist and his lay word for it is not wrong — but it is one of four heads of claim, and the three he omits are the trademark and cybersquatting claims the eventual judgment actually turned on. Do not let "for slander" stand alone as a description of C100. Possible case/dispute link: C100 and DSP003 for the first half, C089 / DSP020 for the second (both tentative, unconfirmed — identified by nickname and role, not by name or docket).
Source removed. Quoted at 02:51 in the archived transcript.
on top of that the landlord filed his own lawsuit in bronx housing court and the guy is so connected to this area that he got a court date in like a week which is crazy to me because i filed a case in supreme court they didn't respond to the supreme court case instead he had his lawyers file a case in bronx housing court to try to evict me and now i got to go there next monday or something to see what's going on
This is the most substantive thing in my slice. It does four things at once, and each is separately useful. (1) It confirms a filing he made — "i filed a case in supreme court" — which is Filing announced or confirmed. (2) It names the court: New York Supreme Court, which the archive did not previously have for this matter. (3) It names a second, entirely separate proceeding running against him: an eviction filed by the landlord's lawyers in Bronx Housing Court, with an appearance he puts at "next monday or something." ⚠ Bronx Housing Court appears nowhere else in this archive — a grep of every file under youtube-research/videos/ for "housing court" returns zero. (4) It alleges forum influence: "the guy is so connected to this area that he got a court date in like a week which is crazy to me" — an assertion that the opposing party's local connections produced favourable scheduling, which is Judicial or forum bias alleged in its ordinary form (a complaint about how the forum treated him, not about a named judge). ⚠ Moderate, not Strong, for two reasons that both have to hold: neither factor here is one of the three core factors, and no tracked case is named — the Supreme Court action is not in lawsuits.csv at all. Possible case/dispute link: the untracked landlord matter recorded on YT053; NOT any row in lawsuits.csv. The identification is unusually solid for an unnamed-party link, because the archive already holds the other half of it: XYE8qZLgK3I ("SUING MY LANDLORD!? Frankie's Free Range Meat Update", published 2022-06-01, dataset row YT053, tagged primary_topic: Landlord litigation with external_matter: Older landlord dispute not currently represented in CASES) carries VS019 — "the most recent one last week a landlord terminated my lease called up the fire department to try to get me a violation and i was very irritated the day after that i filed the lawsuit immediately had him serve the papers" — and VS022, the neighbour-smell/shared-HVAC grievance that this video restates almost word for word at [6:16]. This video is 34 days later (2022-06-01 → 2022-07-05, computed in code) and is the next instalment of the same matter. ⚠ It is not C089. I considered and rejected reading "i filed a case in supreme court" as C089 (Frankies Free Range Meat LLC et al v. Adam Starowicz, Westchester County Supreme, filed 2021-04-22 and still live on this date): the sentence attributes the Housing Court response to the same actor — "he had his lawyers file a case" — and that actor is expressly "the landlord," whereas Starowicz is the LLC's 49% member, not the landlord. VS019 independently dates a landlord suit he filed in late May 2022. Both readings were checked; only one survives.
Source removed. Quoted at 05:42 in the archived transcript.
what am I supposed to do I hire three lawyers they all work against me these people steal my ideas my money infiltrate my business destroy my personal life to the point where my own family turns against me
A dated, on-camera count of his own representation problems, published three days after the NYSCEF docket in C089 (Frankies Free Range Meat LLC et al v. Adam Starowicz, N.Y. Sup. Ct. Westchester, Index 55177/2021) recorded a consent-to-change-attorney filing letting the plaintiffs proceed pro se. Computed as a plain date difference: consent-to-change-attorney 2022-09-23, video published 2022-09-26 = 3 days. ⚠ The count contradicts itself inside this same video — "three lawyers" here, "two lawyers" at [2:36]. Both figures are recorded; neither is reconciled here, and neither should be promoted without a docket check. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — tentative, on the date adjacency and the named party elsewhere in the same video, not on anything the speaker says about a docket.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:12 in the archived transcript.
and I'm sure most of you know the details about how my business partner stole money from me but YouTube was kind enough to take down the video of him in lieu of a privacy complaint
States the underlying grievance that C089's verified complaint pleads — that his co-member of Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC took money out of the business — and records a platform takedown of an earlier video about the same person. No filing, court or docket is mentioned. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — the grievance matches what research_notes.csv records C089 as pleading (embezzlement by the 49% member). Tentative: the speaker names no case.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:44 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.
what's strange is I looked at his LinkedIn profile a few weeks ago it said he was currently employed with the little B Table after I posted that video on him he changed it to not currently employed and that means one of two things he was fired from the job after someone saw the video and contacted them or he removed it as his current employer so that no one would do that either way I have a feeling Mr stalowitz isn't going to have a job after this if he did have one
The channel's own account of a viewer contacting a named opposing party's employer after one of its videos, and of the consequence it believes followed. It bears on the litigation only as conduct toward a party; it describes no filing. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — party link only, as above.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:34 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. "FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ (55177/2021)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/55177-2021-frankies-free-range-meat-llc-et-al-v-adam-starowicz/