Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
57677/2025 · 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, pro se, brings a legal-malpractice/tort claim against his former attorney Jeffrey Davis, Esq., alleging that Davis intentionally or negligently harmed him by failing to notify him of a default filing in a separate federal proceeding in which Davis had represented him (the Saladino federal litigation — see C048, C055, C059), thereby damaging his position in that case. The filing reportedly asks the court to revisit consequences flowing from orders entered in that federal action.
Plaintiff seeks damages for the harm he attributes to counsel's alleged conduct. Sourced via an indexed complaint/petition page, not a full direct read of the document.
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 denied the pro se motion and dismissed the complaint. It found the motion defective and apparently unserved, found no claim within the New York court's subject-matter jurisdiction, held that the state court could not review or vacate federal court orders, and stated that the claims were not cognizable under New York law.
Research status: Source-backed
Research notes: NYSCEF Case Status: Disposed. The decision expressly states that this matter is related to Index No. 50058/2023 (C091), where plaintiff had discontinued all claims against Jeffrey Davis on March 9, 2023.
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 denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the complaint, finding no claim within its subject-matter jurisdiction, explaining that a New York Supreme Court cannot review or vacate federal court orders, and stating that the complaint's claims were not cognizable under New York law. The decision also identified C091 as a related prior action.
May 15, 2025 ruling source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
The 2025 decision expressly identified C091 as related, where claims against Jeffrey Davis had previously been discontinued with prejudice; C094 was dismissed for lack of cognizable state-law/jurisdictional basis.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano filed C004 in Lackawanna County against Jeffrey Davis, Esq. Only 3 docket entries (the Verified Complaint and a companion Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, both filed the same day, plus an Affidavit of Service two months later) have been recorded, with no further activity through 8/18/2026; no disposition has been entered.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Tufano later filed C094 against Jeffrey Davis in Westchester Supreme Court.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗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.
Source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗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.
starting with Jeffrey Davis, a lawyer that screwed me over in court, committing legal malpractice, helping the opposing council instead of actually helping me and defending me.
Names Jeffrey Davis, a tracked defendant, and states the substance of the legal-malpractice claim pleaded against him, including the allegation that he assisted opposing counsel. The video names no case or court.
Why this classification: It reports a result, being screwed over in court, rather than a filing decision, and the mapping to a particular case rests on the party and claim theory alone, which fits Moderate.
Watch at 00:14 — youtube.com ↗So, this is the lawyer that screwed me over in my case against Paul Saladino.
Establishes the relationship that connects two tracked disputes. The dispute-group record describes the Starowicz / arbitration / Davis grouping as arbitration-centred. This states plainly that Davis represented him in the Saladino matter, which is what a recorded secondary source independently reports from the other side. The link between the two disputes runs through shared counsel.
Why this classification: Identifies his former counsel in the Saladino matter, who is himself a defendant in a tracked case.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗He didn't file the correct motions. He didn't do what he should have at certain points and ultimately led to me getting a default in the case. And he's refusing to admit his malpractice or wrongdoing.
The plaintiff's own account of why C100 went to default — attorney malpractice. This sits in direct tension with the court record: the video “Corrupt Judge issued an ILLEGAL ORDER” records C100's finding that the defaults were willful and that no meritorious defense was shown, and the case tracker records final judgment entered with a damages award. Two accounts of the same default, one a public statement and one a court finding, and this project's evidence-layer rule keeps them in separate categories. Recorded, not adjudicated.
Why this classification: Attributes the default entered against him to his former counsel's failure to file the correct motions, and says he will not admit it.
Watch at 00:13 — youtube.com ↗[creator reading an email he attributes to Jeffrey Davis] "...so someone can explain to you while [why] you will very likely not prevail here and for that matter why a state court cannot vacate a federal court decision that is well documented you ignored because you thought you knew better..."
Buried in the mockery is a specific procedural argument — that the suit asks a state court to vacate a federal court decision — which matches the actual disposition of C094 (Frank Tufano v. Jeffrey Davis Esq., NY Supreme, dismissed 2025-05-15, which the case tracker records as finding no subject-matter jurisdiction). An adversary's out-of-court prediction that the case would fail on jurisdiction, followed by dismissal on jurisdiction. Recorded as a temporal/substantive correspondence, not an endorsement.
Why this classification: Reads an email he attributes to his former counsel telling him a state court cannot vacate a well-documented federal decision he ignored. The repeat-forum characterisation is a third party's, read aloud — not his own account of his conduct, which is why this is not tiered Strong.
Watch at 01:52 — youtube.com ↗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. Jeffrey Davis Esq. (57677/2025)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/57677-2025-frank-tufano-v-jeffrey-davis-esq/