State action filed
Frankie's Free Range Meat LLC and others filed a New York Supreme Court action against Adam Starowicz.
Starowicz / arbitration / Davis litigation
Six docket records from the Frankie's Free Range Meat arbitration dispute, naming Adam Starowicz, the American Arbitration Association and Jeffrey Davis.
Cases in this group
- 55177/2021 — FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ
- 50710/2022 — Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz
- 7:23-cv-00244 — Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al
- 50058/2023 — Frank Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al
- 2025-01240 — Tufano v. Davis
- 57677/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Jeffrey Davis Esq.
Dated chronology
Arbitration preliminary hearing
An arbitrator's ruling reproduced by Davis states that a preliminary arbitration hearing occurred on Oct. 25, 2021 and that Tufano was represented by counsel who confirmed the jurisdiction and appropriateness of the proceeding.
Request to pause/stay arbitration addressed
The arbitrator language reproduced by Davis says that by email on or about Apr. 5, 2022 a prior request to pause or stay the arbitration was ruled on, with the arbitrator relying on the operating agreement's mandatory arbitration clause.
State action dismissed
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.
New state complaint filed
Tufano filed C090 against Adam Starowicz in Westchester Supreme Court.
Motion to dismiss state case
Davis reports that Starowicz filed a motion to dismiss C090 on Jan. 9, 2023, arguing that the dispute belonged in the pending arbitration.
Federal complaint filed
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.
Show-cause order
The federal court ordered Tufano to show cause why C099 should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Federal case dismissed
After receiving Tufano's show-cause response, the court dismissed C099 without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
New state complaint filed
The next day, Tufano filed C091 in Westchester Supreme Court against the same four defendants named in C099: AAA, Jeffrey Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson.
State cases discontinued with prejudice
Stipulations filed March 9, 2023 discontinued Tufano's claims in C090 and C091 with prejudice.
Complaint filed
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.
Later Davis lawsuit filed
Tufano later filed C094 against Jeffrey Davis in Westchester Supreme Court.
Later Davis case dismissed
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.
Public statements by filing-restriction factor
3 researched statements connected to this dispute group describe filing conduct of a kind the indicator data records, ordered with the factors closest to the filing-restriction criteria first. A factor records what the speaker said — not that a court found it, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant. Statements whose words describe no filing conduct are not ranked here; they are listed on each case page and on the video's own research page.
What these tiers are: “Strong”, “Moderate” and “Context” are this project’s research classification of how closely a public statement bears on the documented filing-restriction indicators. They are not judicial findings, not an adjudication of anything said in a video, and not a determination that Frank Tufano is a vexatious litigant — no court in this dataset has made that determination. Court findings, party statements and research classifications are kept in separate evidence layers throughout this site; see Methodology.
How a tier is assigned. Strong — the statement names a tracked case or dispute and describes filing conduct of the kind the indicators document: repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision, or filing framed as imposing cost on the opponent. Moderate — it bears on litigation conduct or chronology in a tracked dispute, but the case link is tentative or the statement describes something other than the speaker’s own filing behaviour. Context — general commentary with no specific tracked case identified.
What the factor labels are. Each statement is also labelled with the filing-restriction factor its own words describe, so the reason for a classification is visible rather than implied. Most factors correspond to a criterion recorded in the indicator data, and the three that do not are marked as such there — a filing that has only been threatened has no docket to record, and an allegation about a court is the speaker’s characterisation rather than a recorded criterion. Repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision and cost imposition as stated motive are the three that can qualify a statement as Strong; threatened or prospective filing, self-reported filing volume, filing announced or confirmed, adverse outcome described and judicial or forum bias alleged record related but weaker signals. A statement that describes no filing conduct carries no factor badge. A factor records what the speaker said — not that a court found it, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant.
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.
Quotations on this page are excerpts: a quotation ending in an ellipsis is shortened here for length. The full wording, and the reason recorded for its pattern-relevance tier, are on the video’s own research page — follow the ¶ permalink on any card.
Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
[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…
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.
Watch at 01:52 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
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.
Watch at 00:13 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
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.
Watch at 00:14 — youtube.com ↗Public video material in this dispute
Public statements are indexed separately from court findings and from this project's research classifications.
Dispute groups are research/navigation categories. They are not judicial findings that every case contains legally identical claims.