Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
620245/2024 · 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, alleges that defendant Jake Levy — after placing orders for Tufano's “Best Bar” protein-bar product — copied its formulation and marketing and began selling a competing “Whey Better Bar” product through Better Life Foods Inc. (also naming Norman Levy and Robyn Levy) with an identical or near-identical recipe, flavor lineup, and a similar name.
The corrected summons and complaint asserts claims sounding in unfair competition/passing off, misappropriation of trade secret, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages. A related dispute involving overlapping parties was separately litigated in federal court (C039); a Pennsylvania-specific statutory claim and a specific damages figure from that federal filing could not be confirmed as part of this New York filing and were deliberately excluded here. Sourced via an indexed copy of the corrected summons and complaint, not a full direct read.
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: On August 26, 2025 the court denied plaintiff's default-judgment motion because the proof of service did not satisfy CPLR 308/311/3215 and plaintiff himself had signed an affidavit of service despite being a party. NYSCEF now marks the case Disposed, but the public document list does not show a later final-disposition document explaining that status.
Research status: Partially researched
Research notes: NYSCEF Case Status: Disposed. Plaintiff's Dec. 8, 2025 filing states he had been attempting service since 'the previous lawsuit' and attaches service records identifying federal case 3:23-CV-02106 (C039), involving the same Levy/Better Life defendants. This supports the refiling relationship, but the precise NYSCEF disposition basis remains unclear.
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 for default judgment because the proof of service was deficient under CPLR 308, 311 and 3215; it also noted that plaintiff himself signed an affidavit of service despite being a party to the action.
August 26, 2025 ruling source — iapps.courts.state.ny.us ↗Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
NYSCEF filings link the later Levy/Better Life action to federal case C039; the New York court later denied default judgment because the proof of service was deficient. The precise final NYSCEF disposal basis remains unclear.
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.
And the reason he changed his product name from Way Better Bar to Jacob Bar, is because I sued him in court. And I'm still trying to sue him in court. But guess what? If one of these corporate degenerates, these elite people, steal your small business idea and you try to sue them in court, guess what? The judge is going to protect them because they're all in the club.
The load-bearing quote from this video. It (a) names a tracked dispute by its product names, (b) confirms a filing already made against that party, (c) states that he is continuing to pursue further proceedings on the same grievance, and (d) alleges the judiciary will protect the opponent. The docket behind it: C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa. 3:23-cv-02106, filed 2023-12-20, dismissed 2024-10-11 for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, “expressly without further leave to amend”), then C093 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed 2024-11-14 — 34 days later — and pending on this date), then C036 (Lackawanna, 2026-03-09) and C068 (M.D. Pa., 2026-04-13). The case tracker records that C093's own December 2025 filing “states he had been attempting service since 'the previous lawsuit'” and attaches service records identifying C039 — which the tracker treats as supporting the refiling relationship. So “I'm still trying to sue him in court,” said in June 2025, sits between two rounds of that sequence and 275 days before the next one. Why Strong, written out so the call is auditable: the Strong rubric requires a tracked case or dispute and core filing conduct. The dispute is named via the product names, which the statement record already resolves to the Levy defendants, and “I sued him in court… and I'm still trying to sue him in court” describes continuing to litigate a grievance already litigated — the core factor Repeat filing on the same dispute — alongside a confirmed filing. A more conservative reading would take “still trying to sue him” as effort inside the then-pending C093 rather than a further action and classify this as Moderate (Filing announced or confirmed; Threatened or prospective filing); the Strong classification rests on the continued-pursuit reading, and the alternative is recorded here so the tier can be revisited without re-watching.
Watch at 00:46 — youtube.com ↗a lot of you guys have been asking when the best bars are going to be back in stock we have them available for pre-order on the website Frankie freerange foods.com through next week so if You' [= you'd] like to get first dibs it's our original formula as always grass food we protein [= grass-fed whey protein] grass food beef Tallow [= grass-fed beef tallow] raw honey organic chocolate for the chocolate flavor we got some organic vanilla in there and some sea salt
The strongest finding among the statements researched from this video. The speaker names his product — "the best bars" — asserts it is "our original formula as always," and then recites the formula: whey protein, beef tallow, raw honey, vanilla, sea salt (plus organic chocolate for the chocolate variant). That is, to the ingredient, the recipe the tracked pleadings describe. C036's recorded claims summary reads: "Plaintiff alleges he created a proprietary protein-bar recipe, 'Best Bar,' on Dec. 1, 2020, combining whey protein powder, beef fat tallow, honey, vanilla, and salt in a formulation he says is unique enough that no other maker would independently arrive at it" — repeated for C068 (the removed federal half of the same action), and the same "Best Bar" product is the subject of C039 and C093. Published 2023-12-15, it is a five-day pre-filing statement: C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa. 3:23-cv-02106) was filed 2023-12-20. It describes no filing conduct at all — no suit, threat, court, opponent or copying is mentioned — hence No filing-conduct factor and a Moderate, not Strong, tier. Its value is as evidence of the product and its claimed originality in his own words, in the window before the first action over it, not as a statement about litigation. No party is named: Levy, Better Life, "Whey Better Bar" and words like copy, stole or theft occur nowhere in the video's captions. The case link rests on the product, the recited formula and the date — not on a name, and not on the title.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗I I take a lot of pride in the in the health and nutrition bars I've made and the Cookie Bars because there's nothing else really like them on the market it's also why we were played rizon [= plagiarized] copied on the best bar which is whole other headache that I'm not getting into today
One of the strongest findings in this research. Published 2023-12-19; C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa. 3:23-cv-02106) was filed 2023-12-20 — one day later, a plain date difference with both dates stated. The statement names the grievance that C039 pleads: C039's claims summary records that defendant Jake Levy purchased samples of his "Best Bar" protein-bar product in 2020 with intent to copy its formula, product line, and marketing. Here he says, on camera, the day before filing, that he was "played rizon [= plagiarized] copied on the best bar" — naming the product and the grievance, and calling it "a whole other headache that I'm not getting into today," which reads as deliberate withholding of something already in motion. Tiered Moderate, not Strong, and the factor is No filing-conduct factor — deliberately. The Strong tier requires filing conduct of a core-factor kind alongside an identified case. He describes being copied; he does not say he has filed, is filing, will file, or has filed before, or that filing will cost anyone money. "A whole other headache" is suggestive but is not a filing statement; recording a filing factor here would put a conclusion into the classification that the words do not support. No party is named — Levy, Better Life, Whey Better, Jacob, Saladino and TikTok Shop appear nowhere in the video's captions; the link is made on product plus grievance plus date, not on a name. These are his own words, not a recited review — the passage sits between two product reviews in the video.
Why this classification: He names the "best bar" plagiarism grievance that C039 pleads on camera one day before that complaint was filed, but he describes being copied and calls it "a whole other headache" rather than saying he has filed, will file, or has filed before, so the filing side is unstated and the tier stays Moderate.
Watch at 26:36 — youtube.com ↗too much you know I I $2,000 chargebacks these other people leaving negative reviews on my business this stuff happening every week you know that that kid that stole my best for idea the court doesn't care at all
"That kid that stole my best for idea" is "that kid that stole my Best Bar idea" — C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa., filed 2023-12-20), whose claims summary pleads that Jake Levy bought samples of his "Best Bar" protein bar in order to copy the formula. The sentence places the dispute in a documented chain: on 2024-07-02 the case was still live (the recorded litigation timeline shows C039 dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on 2024-10-11), and he is already saying "the court doesn't care at all" — 101 days before that dismissal and 135 days before he refiled the same dispute in New York as C093 (filed 2024-11-14), which the tracker codes as a refiling of C039 and records as a filing-restriction indicator. This is contemporaneous evidence of the dissatisfaction that preceded a coded refiling, from inside the interval, which is precisely what a docket cannot supply.
Watch at 20:44 — youtube.com ↗so I filed about a dozen lawsuits Al together and every single one of them was dismissed by a judge as I said before I could even serve the opposing Council papers
both halves are checkable. Volume: 21 docket records exist on or before 2025-01-08, of which 20 were filed by him — so "about a dozen" understates the tracker, unless he means only the 2023–2025 federal/state run (C039, C040, C041, C042, C043, C044, C045, C046, C001, C002, C092, C093, C101 = thirteen), for which it is close to exact. Outcomes: a documented cluster of dismissals precedes this video — C042 (2024-11-13), C040 (2024-12-09), C044 (2024-12-11), C041 (2024-12-16), C043 (2024-12-30), the last of those nine days before publication. But "every single one" is overbroad on the same date: C045, C046, C101, C001 and C002 were all live.
Watch at 02:02 — youtube.com ↗the best bars uh vanilla chocolate strawberry maybe have to update you guys on that lawsuit but uh nothing ever goes my way so go figure
The only reference to a lawsuit in the video, and it arrives mid-sentence while he is reading out bar flavours. The sentence's own subject is his Best Bar product, which is the product at the centre of the Better Life / Levy product dispute — C039 (Tufano v. Levy et al, M.D. Pa., filed 2023-12-20) was dismissed 2024-10-11, and C093 (Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et al, NY Supreme, filed 2024-11-14) was pending on the day this was published. "Nothing ever goes my way" is a general expression of pessimism about the case; it is not a report of a ruling, so the quote does not carry Adverse outcome described.
Watch at 03:47 — youtube.com ↗Some of you might be familiar with the Jacob Bar, which is a carbon copy of my Best Bar that I launched a few years ago. The Jacob Bar was originally launched as the Way Better Bar, which is more similar to my product name, the Best Bar.
All three product names in the Better Life / Levy product dispute, in one sentence, on 2025-06-08. The statement record already carries the "Way Better Bar" fact from a video published 2025-10-18 — "He originally had a bar called the Way Better Bar, which was even a more obvious carbon copy of my idea" — and the research on that statement records that the product name appears nowhere in the case tracker. This clip predates that statement by 132 days and is, so far as the dataset and the research archive show, the earliest statement of the chain. Another researched statement independently ties "Jacob Bar" to Better Life Foods Inc and the Levy defendants — Jake, Norman and Robyn Levy — all on the C036/C068 defendant lists. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)
Watch at 00:30 — youtube.com ↗They've been copied and astroturfed. Whether it's the best bars by uh that kid Jake Levy, uh the beef tallow chips have been copied by Vandy. Uh the honey ice cream is that guy ice cream for bears. That's where he got the idea. He stole it from me.
The longest-lead pre-filing statement found in this stretch of the research. Two of the three parties are tracked, both named with the grievance the eventual complaint pleads, and no filing is announced or even hinted at. "Ice cream for bears... He stole it from me" points to Ice Cream for Bears LLC and C070, Tufano v. Ice Cream for Bears LLC et al, filed 2026-04-20 — 290 days after publication. Earlier research had anchored the same case's pre-filing lead at 210 days via a video published 2025-09-22; C070 therefore now has two independently dated pre-filing statements, and this is the earlier by nearly three months. "The best bars by uh that kid Jake Levy" names Jake Levy of the Better Life / Levy product dispute — but a direction and chronology caution is recorded in the research notes, and that reference is not a pre-filing statement. "Copied by Vandy" matches nothing in the tracked records; it is unresolved, not ruled out.
Watch at 04:00 — youtube.com ↗You know, I'm curious if these judges in the New York State Court will ever let me prosecute this kid who stole my protein bar idea.
Places the grievance in a specific forum — the New York State Court — which matches C093 (Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et al, New York State Supreme Court, filed 2024-11-14). the case tracker records that on 2025-08-26, roughly seven weeks before this video, the court denied his default-judgment motion because the proof of service did not satisfy CPLR 308/311/3215 and because he had signed the affidavit of service himself despite being a party. That is a concrete recent adverse ruling matching the complaint voiced here. Restated at [0:57]: "these judges won't even let me surf and" — cut off, but consistent with serve and the service defect that decided the motion.
Why this classification: Questions whether the New York courts will ever allow his protein-bar claim to proceed.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗I came out with the best bar, I don't know, in 2020. And he stole that exact formula, sold it for a few years, and makes god knows how much more money than I have off that bar.
Dates his own Best Bar to roughly 2020 — a useful anchor for the chronology of the Better Life / Levy product dispute, since the tracked filings run from C093 (2024) through C036/C068 (2026). "I don't know, in 2020" is his own hedge and should be preserved as approximate.
Why this classification: Background on the protein-bar formula he says was copied and the revenue it earned.
Watch at 00:15 — youtube.com ↗Up next is Jacob Levy, who stole my best bar idea, has made millions of dollars, and is still continuing to profit off of my original protein bar because I am censored, shadowbanned, they control all social media. Really despicable.
Identifies a tracked defendant by a variant of his given name, Jacob for the tracked Jake Levy, and states the underlying grievance behind the competing-food-product dispute, coupled with a shadowbanning claim.
Why this classification: A tracked party and the core grievance of a tracked dispute are identified, but the statement announces no filing and names no case, so it stays at Moderate.
Watch at 00:23 — youtube.com ↗Of course, we have the best bars, which are the original bar that that kid copied that I still haven't gotten compensated from in court. That's a whole different story for another video.
The load-bearing quote from this video. He states, unprompted and inside a product walkthrough, that a competing product copied his protein bar and that he has litigated and not recovered ("in court"). That is a reported case outcome against him — a docket fact, not filing conduct — and it is the only reference to a court anywhere in 25 minutes. The subject matter (a copied food bar, a young competitor) matches the Better Life / Levy product dispute exactly.
Watch at 22:33 — youtube.com ↗Jake Levy should be in jail for theft of trade secrets. But because I'm not in the club, because I'm not a member of the elite, he's able to steal my formulas and products and make millions of dollars off of them. He's the original culprit.
Names a tracked defendant and identifies him as the origin of the product dispute, with the not-in-the-club framing that recurs across the channel. It also asserts he should be in jail for theft of trade secrets, an unadjudicated criminal characterisation of a civil dispute; no criminal proceeding against either target appears anywhere in the dataset.
Why this classification: The individual named is a defendant in tracked actions and the statement identifies him as the origin of the dispute, but it describes no filing conduct and names no case, court or docket.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗So, he ordered the bars off my website, the best bar that I came up with 5 years ago, sent these bars to a manufacturer to be replicated. And ever since 2023, he's been selling these bars. Originally called the Way Better Bar, but then after all these online accusations, he changed the name to the Jacob Bar.
The clearest statement of what the Best Bar dispute alleges: the mechanism he describes, ordering the product and sending it to a manufacturer to replicate, the start date he gives, and the renaming of the competing bar. It was published twelve days before the tracked state case was filed.
Why this classification: It sets out the underlying facts of a tracked dispute in his own words shortly before the action pleading them was filed, but it describes no filing conduct and names no case, court or docket.
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗Ice Cream for Bears is another business that copied and plagiarized my idea. Although it's not as direct as the Jacob bar where he literally copied the exact same formula and offered the exact same flavors and had a similar name. That was like an insanely blatant plagiarizing. Ice Cream for Bears was a little less obvious.
Links two separate tracked disputes in one sentence, and ranks them. "The Jacob bar" is the Jake Levy / Better Life protein-bar matter — C093, Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et al, and the subject of the videos "Best Bar THIEF Jake Levy MAKING MILLIONS OFF ME" and "Protein Bars LAWSUIT". He characterises that one as "insanely blatant" and this one as "a little less obvious" — his own assessment that the Ice Cream for Bears copying claim is the weaker of the two. That is a statement against interest worth preserving verbatim.
Why this classification: Compares two alleged copies of his products, rating one a more blatant imitation than the other.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗for these Best Bars, this is actually the original formula that I keep complaining people steal, the whey protein, beef tallow, and honey. And then we have our flavor, whether it's vanilla or chocolate. In the case of berry, I mean, I can't even afford to to buy new pouches. And that's what happens when you get shadowbanned and censored and people steal your ideas and take advantage of you.
He identifies on camera the specific product and the specific three-ingredient formula that is the subject matter of the tracked trade-secret litigation, and states the business harm he attributes to its copying. The same three ingredients are recited in a sibling video ten days earlier.
Why this classification: It restates a pleaded claim and identifies the product at its centre, which is why it bears on the tracked actions, but it describes others' alleged conduct rather than any filing of his own, and names no case, court, party or docket.
Watch at 00:14 — 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. Jake Levy et al (620245/2024)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/620245-2024-frank-tufano-v-jake-levy-et-al/