Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Case research · C097
Frank Tufano v. Northtown Honda
809139/2025 · New York State Supreme Court
PendingNew York
CourtNew York State Supreme Court
FiledMay 29, 2025
StatusPending
Outcome—
Final disposition—
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 alleges causes of action for fraud and breach of contract against Northtown Honda arising from a vehicle purchase. The complaint alleges that after a minor deer-collision repair, a body shop discovered pre-existing, undisclosed front-end damage, and plaintiff's mechanic separately found severely dry-rotted tires dated 2017 that should have been disclosed or replaced before sale; plaintiff also alleges the dealership refused to honor a six-month warranty it had provided.
Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of the vehicle's value (~$21,000), tire-replacement costs (~$2,100), and rental-car expenses (~$3,385.41), for a stated total of $26,485.41.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Research notes: NYSCEF Case Status: Pre-RJI. Public docket shows summons/complaint filed May 29, 2025 and a verified answer filed July 11, 2025. No decision or final disposition was found.
Public video statements
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.
I spent every day last week writing up lawsuits, suing this oven company because they won't send me replacement parts for the oven. I'm suing the bank because they didn't uh honor my mortgage terms. I'm suing these I literally filed seven lawsuits last week and it looks like we're going to be filing a few more.
A self-reported filing count that the docket data corroborates exactly, with two of the seven identified by their subject matter in the same breath. The case tracker records exactly seven actions filed in the week Monday 2025-05-26 → Sunday 2025-06-01: C007, C008, C009, C010, C011 and C012 (all Lackawanna County, 2025-05-27) and C097 (New York Supreme Court, 2025-05-29). "Suing this oven company because they won't send me replacement parts for the oven" is C012, Tufano v. Rational USA Inc (2025-03932), whose own claims summary reads: "purchased a commercial 'Rational' combi oven … that arrived missing parts; the parts supplier … and Rational USA took more than six months to provide the missing parts, then sent the wrong ones, after which Rational ceased contact." "I'm suing the bank because they didn't uh honor my mortgage terms" is C009, Tufano v. Fidelity Bank (2025-03929), part of the Fidelity Bank mortgage and flood-insurance dispute, which the recorded litigation timeline shows filed 2025-05-27 "over the disputed payoff and flood-insurance charge." The Repeat filing on the same dispute factor is carried by C011 (Fenix Internet, filed about six and a half months after C042's dismissal) and C010 (USDA, about two months after C049's dismissal), which the recorded litigation timeline characterises as new complaints on already-litigated grievances — though he does not say so here. The count matching is a corroboration, not proof he meant those seven. He names two; the other five are inferred from the calendar alone.
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. Northtown Honda (809139/2025)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/809139-2025-frank-tufano-v-northtown-honda/