A Hollymatic patty machine bought at auction and found unusable, 295 days before C096. A chargeback filed BY him, seven weeks after he announced suing people who file chargebacks.
Evidentiary treatment: This is a public statement by a party, indexed separately from court findings, party filings and this project’s research classifications. Quotations below are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted; each links back to that exact moment so a reader can verify it. Auto-captions are machine-generated and mis-transcribe names and figures, so wording is preserved as transcribed rather than silently corrected. No transcript is reproduced here, and neither the video’s inclusion nor its relevance tier is a judicial finding.
Timestamped statements
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.
so there's an auction for some pretty low price equipment I'm honestly probably just going to resell it cuz I don't think I can use it but the reason I bought stuff at that auction was because this burger patty machine was available and it was something I was looking at for a while uh it's called hollymatic and they listed it as in like Fair operating condition but it's not like the the whole inside plastic assembly is cracked there's loose bolts everywhere it's not usable as far as I'm concerned
“Hollymatic” appears in the dataset exactly once — in the claims summary for C096 (Frank Tufano v. Fernando Gil et al, N.Y. Sup. Ct. Bronx County 805063/2025E, filed 2025-03-04), which pleads that Gil and Nando Equipment, Inc. sold him “a Garland tilt skillet ($3,500), Hobart band saw ($5,000), and Hollymatic patty machine ($3,000) represented as fully operational, but that none functioned once hooked up”, seeking $25,000. The grievance shape matches this video almost exactly: a patty machine represented as working, found broken and effectively unrepairable. Whether the two machines are the same is unresolved and is deliberately not settled here. Two readings, and neither is adopted. 1. Different transactions: C096 pleads a sale by Gil “leveraging a prior business relationship”; this video describes an auction lot bought from an auction company he had no relationship with, and resolves it by credit-card chargeback, not by suit. On that reading these are two separate broken Hollymatics in the same year. 2. The same machine: a later video (2025-03-22) dates the Gil equipment dispute to “last year”, i.e. 2024, and this video is from 2024-05-13; another (2025-01-20) records him buying equipment “at auctions” habitually, so an auction and a personal seller are not mutually exclusive if Gil ran or supplied the lot. The docket check that would settle it: does C096's complaint identify the acquisition channel or a date for the patty machine? Until it does, no filing-chronology link to C096 should be drawn from this video — a matching grievance does not by itself license a party link. The Hollymatic name matches no tracked party, and neither Gil nor Nando Equipment is named anywhere in this video.
and uh it's almost Beyond cleaning so thankfully I put it on my credit card so uh I reached out to the auction company they didn't want to I said hey can you either fix it for me and I'll pay like half the repir price or can you give me a full refund they didn't want to do either of those things so I just charged back the credit card and then as soon as my credit card company hopefully sides with me they can come pick up their P equipment
recorded as a factual juxtaposition, offered neutrally and with no inference drawn. A7H25rpBXu8 (2024-03-25, also in this slice) announces a lawsuit against "all you guys that file chargebacks" and characterises chargebacks against his business as an organised harassment campaign. Forty-nine days later he describes filing one himself, against a seller, after a refund was refused — and describes the escalation ladder (repair, then refund, then chargeback) in the same terms his own refund policy uses. C040 was filed nine days after this video on the theory that chargebacks against him were criminal conspiracy. The archive records both statements; it takes no position on whether they are inconsistent, which is a question about the merits and not about the transcript.
Moderate pattern relevanceFiling announced or confirmed10:36
still dealing with an issue with um uh a real estate agent stole my $5,000 deposit so I I have an active court case right now in the Supreme Court
C092 (Frank Tufano v. Wise Choice Cuts LLC et al, New York State Supreme Court, Jefferson County, EF2024-00001069) was filed 2024-03-11 and discontinued 2024-08-14. This video published 2024-05-13 — 63 days after filing and 93 days before disposition — and is, on the evidence of the research archive, the only contemporaneous statement that the case is live and pending. The three other archived attestations are one grievance statement made on the filing date itself and two retrospectives from 2025. Every element matches the docket: the amount, the real-estate agent, the New York Supreme Court forum, and the case being unresolved in May 2024. C092's defendants include Keller Williams (NY) LLC — a real-estate brokerage — and Lori Gervera. He never names a party, a county, a docket number or a judge, so the identification rests entirely on the amount, the role and the forum: searches for Watertown or Jefferson turn up nothing useful, and reading the tracker's defendant lists for what kind of business each party is — here, a real-estate brokerage — is the only route to the match.
and um I don't know we'll see what happens in the next month or two I might have to make a I look these people stole my money I kind of just want to make a video about them and then they'll probably I know who knows they'll come running back with with their tail between their legs but like I don't like I don't want to I don't like talking about negative stuff so we we'll see if I have to do that that's like that's the worst case scenario
an unusual and useful specimen — the pressure tactic named here is not a filing (the case is already on file) but a video, held in reserve as "the worst case scenario", with the stated mechanism being that "their whole business reputation is on the line" ([11:14]). C092 ended in a stipulated discontinuance three months later, which he later described as the one case he "won". Cost imposition as stated motive was considered and is deliberately NOT applied. The published factor turns on the opponent's legal spend; the mechanism stated here is reputational exposure, and the skill's leafleting rule is explicit that the factor follows the stated motive, not the tactic. Threatened or prospective filing is also not applied: nothing new is threatened to be filed. The correct label is No filing-conduct factor, and the reasoning is recorded so a later pass does not upgrade it silently.
A case link records a researched connection between the video and a docket record. It is not a finding that the video caused, or was caused by, any filing.
805063/2025E — Frank Tufano v. Fernando Gil et alTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 00:16 researched as bearing on this case: A Hollymatic patty machine bought at auction and found unusable, 295 days before C096.