Preview
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF COLUMBIA
ANDREW RODRIGUE,
Plaintiff,
-against- SUMMONS
PINTOTAL PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., d/b/a
GREENFLOW, and MATTHEW PINTO, individually,
Defendants.
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Verified Complaint in the above-entitled
action enclosed hereweith and to serve a copy of your answer on Plaintiff’s attorneys within twenty
(20) days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days
after service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New
York. In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for
the relief demanded in the Verified Complaint.
Plaintiff hereby designates Columbia County as the place of trial. The basis of venue is that
Defendants reside in Columbia County. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
1 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
Dated: December 20, 2022
TOPOROWSKI LAW, PLLC
By: _________________________________
Matthew A. Toporowski, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew Rodrigue
P.O. Box 7271
Albany, New York 12224
Tel: (845) 532-3513
matthew.toporowski@gmail.com
2 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF COLUMBIA
ANDREW RODRIGUE,
Plaintiff,
VERIFIED
COMPLAINT
-against-
Jury Trial Demanded
PINTOTAL PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., d/b/a
GREENFLOW, and MATTHEW PINTO, individually,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Andrew Rodrigue, by and through his attorneys, Toporowski Law, PLLC,
complaining of Defendants Pintotal Property Services, Inc., doing business as, Greenflow (the
“Company”), and Matthew Pinto, individually, (“Pinto” with the Company, “Defendants”), alleges as
follows:
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION
1. Defendants solicited Plaintiff for tens of thousands of dollars for heavy landscape
work to his property, which Plaintiff paid for, but Defendants failed to complete.
2. Over the course of about a year, Defendants continued to reassure Plaintiff both in
writing and verbally in-person that they would complete the work as agreed to. As a result of
Defendants’ express assurances, Plaintiff continued to be patient and provided Defendants funds as
requested to complete the work agreed to.
3. However, Defendants failed to complete the work they solicited Plaintiff for, and
forced Plaintiff to request his money back. Instead of resolving this matter amicably as Plaintiff
attempted to do countless times, Defendants ignored Plaintiff.
3 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
4. As a result of Defendants’ fraud, theft and nefarious actions, Plaintiff brings the
following causes of action: (i) breach of contract, (ii) fraud, (iii) conversion, (iv) unjust enrichment, (v)
pierce corporate veil, (vi) breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and (vii) tortious
interference with contract.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Andrew Rodrigue is a natural person, and at all times relevant herein resides
in Valatie, New York.
6. The Company is, at all relevant times herein, a domestic business corporation formed
and existing under the laws of the state of New York with a principal place of business at 1301 River
Street, Suite 107, Valatie, New York 12184.
7. Defendant Matthew Pinto is a natural person, and, upon information and belief, at all
times relevant herein resides in Valatie, New York, and is an owner of the Company.
VENUE
8. Venue is proper in Columbia County, New York, as a substantial portion of the facts
and circumstances that resulted in this action occurred there.
9. Venue is also proper in Columbia County, New York as Defendants reside there and
have their principal place of business there.
10. Venue is also proper in Columbia County, New York as Plaintiff resides there.
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. In or about July 2021, Pinto, on behalf of the Company, personally toured Plaintiff’s
2-acre residential property in Valatie, New York. The purpose of Pinto’s visit was to survey and assess
Plaintiff’s property for heavy landscaping work.
12. Pinto identified the following items to include in the scope of Defendants’ work:
removing pine trees, stripping existing landscaping around Plaintiff’s house to replace it with shrubs,
2
4 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
trees, and grass, adding mulch and metal edging, adding decorative stone, creating mulch beds around
existing trees, installing a bluestone walkway to Plaintiff’s pool and deck, removal and replacement of
landscaping around Plaintiff’s pool with decorative stone and shrubs, removal and replacement of
landscaping around Plaintiff’s shed with decorative stone, metal edging, plants, grasses and also
installing artificial turf as necessary.
13. The quote for the foregoing heavy landscaping work that Pinto identified was for
about $26,500.00.
14. Plaintiff paid Defendants for the foregoing heavy landscaping work.
15. Shortly thereafter, in or about September 2021, Pinto solicited Plaintiff for more work
to his property.
16. Pinto identified the possibility of constructing a gazebo near a firepit. He also included
in this additional scope of work: moving an existing fence, installing underground electrical lines from
Plaintiff’s home to the firepit area, running a propane line to the firepit area, installing a propone line
for access on Plaintiff’s deck, installing underground ethernet cables in the backyard, installing lighting
around the pool, extending the pool deck, and creating a concrete foundation for the gazebo near the
firepit.
17. The quote for the foregoing additional heavy landscaping work that Pinto solicited
Plaintiff for was for about $17,000.
18. Plaintiff paid Defendants for the foregoing heavy landscaping work.
19. All told, Plaintiff paid Defendants about $42,000 for heavy landscaping work.
20. Defendants’ quotes for the foregoing heavy landscaping work described herein were
formalized in written estimates that the Parties signed and agreed to (collectively, the “Agreements”).
3
5 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
21. Defendants also agreed to provide landscape maintenance services, including
fertilization, weed killer,and seeding, which Plaintiff paid for, but which was incompletely and
intermittently performed by Defendants.
22. Defendants’ maintenance responsibilities, which Plaintiff paid for, were the subject of
another written estimate that the Parties signed and agreed to (“Maintenance Agreement”).
23. Defendants began and intermittently and incompletely performed the work identified
by Pinto and paid for by Plaintiff, but work remained incomplete.
24. Defendants failed to complete work paid for by Plaintiff, and also failed to maintain
Plaintiff’s property as agreed to.
25. Defendants breached the Agreements and Maintenance Agreement.
26. As early as the fall of 2021, just months after Defendants agreed and Plaintiff paid for
a substantial amount of work, Plaintiff’s property became overgrown and in a similar condition to
how it appeared prior to hiring Defendants to service it.
27. Plaintiff repeatedly contacted Defendants to request that work be completed as agreed
to and as paid for.
28. Defendants failed to respond timely or if at all.
29. About a year after the Parties’ initial Agreements, the majority of the work agreed to
and paid for was still incomplete.
30. Finally, in or about June 2022, Defendants’ Director of Operations, Ellen Thomas,
and another employee of Defendants named Eric, came to Plaintiff’s property, and assured him that
the work would be completed as agreed to. Defendants’ employees stated that the work could be
completed the following week.
4
6 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
31. Pinto expressly vouched for his Director of Operations to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s
property was a priority, stating, “Hired a director of operations, started Monday. She hasn’t worked
on anything besides making your shit happen.”
32. Defendants’ Director of Operations continued to expressly assure Plaintiff that the
work would be competed. She stated by text message “Understood Andrew! I promise you I’m
working as fast as I can in it.” She continued, “Monday morning I will do a follow up with everyone
involved although I did speak to just about everyone this week.”
33. Defendants’ employees never came back to complete the work as they had promised
to do, however.
34. Pinto himself promised to complete the heavy landscaping work to Plaintiff’s property
stating, “I can’t wait to finish that fucking yard, promise”, “[w]e’ll get it happening”, “I won’t
disappoint”, and “Absolutely not an option for me to screw you over.”
35. Pinto further assured Plaintiff, “Full disclosure We will be working on trust after this
payment as there is more work to be done that will have a balance renaming on but I certainly won’t
let you down.”
36. Based on Pinto’s assurances, and request to charge Plaintiff’s credit card, stating, “How
would you react if I wanted to hit the Amex for some Ching”, Plaintiff paid $7,500 to Defendants for
work to be completed as promised.
37. Following months of inaction, Plaintiff at this point again expressed his frustration and
dissatisfaction to Defendants for their failure to complete work as agreed to and as assured on several
occasions in writing and verbally.
38. In or about July 2022, as a result of Defendants’ continued verbal and written
assurances that work would be completed, but itnever actually occurring, Plaintiff requested his
money back and to sever the relationship.
5
7 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
39. By this point Plaintiff had paid Defendants about $42,000 for work agreed to that was
at best intermittently and incompletely performed.
40. In or about August 2022, Plaintiff again attempted to resolve this matter amicably and
requested a refund for work that Defendants agreed to but failed to complete. At this point
Defendants became unresponsive having tens of thousands of dollars of Plaintiff’s money, no
incentive to return it, and no desire to complete work they agreed to.
41. Plaintiff again requested a refund in or about October 2022.
42. Defendants again failed to respond to Plaintiff’s repeated requests to resolve this
matter amicably.
43. As a result of Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiff’s multiple requests to resolve
this matter and to return his money for work that was never completed, the instant lawsuit ensued.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
44. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
45. Plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable agreement with Defendants for heavy
landscaping work.
46. Plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable agreement with Defendants for
maintenance work.
47. Defendants were provided good and valuable consideration pursuant to the
Agreements and the Maintenance Agreement.
48. Defendants breached the Agreements and Maintenance Agreement.
49. Plaintiff fulfilled his obligations pursuant to the Agreements and Maintenance
Agreement.
50. Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendants’ breaches.
6
8 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
51. Plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial as a
result of Defendants’ breach of contract.
52. Plaintiff’s damages are greater than the jurisdictional limit of all other lower courts that
would otherwise have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud)
53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully
set forth herein.
54. Defendants knowingly and intentionally misrepresented their actions Plaintiff.
55. Defendants knowingly and intentionally misled Plaintiff to believe that they were
capable to complete the heavy landscaping work and maintenance services when, instead, they were
fraudulently converting Plaintiff’s money for their own personal benefit.
56. Defendants’ misrepresentations to Plaintiff were made for the purpose of inducing
Plaintiff to provide Defendants with more money for their own personal gain, and not to perform
work as agreed to.
57. Defendants and their employees repeatedly assured Plaintiff that they were able and
planned to complete the work agreed to.
58. Defendants’ Director of Operations, Ellen Thomas, stated by text message,
“Understood Andrew! I promise you I’m working as fast as I can in it.” She continued, “Monday
morning I will do a follow up with everyone involved although I did speak to just about everyone this
week.”
59. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants’ assurances because they were not
unreasonable on their face.
60. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants’ employees’ assurances because they were not
unreasonable on their face.
7
9 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
61. Defendants’ misrepresentations and Defendants’ employees’ misrepresentations to
Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff’s decision to continue to fund the heavy landscaping and
maintenance work.
62. Defendants knew the representations that they made to Plaintiff were false when they
made them or made them recklessly.
63. The purpose of Defendants’ fraud was to convert Plaintiff’s funds and enrich
themselves at Plaintiff’s expense.
64. Plaintiff suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendants’ fraudulent activities in
an amount to be determined at trial together with attorneys’ fees, costs, interest and punitive damages.
65. Plaintiff’s damages are greater than the jurisdictional limit of all other lower courts that
would otherwise have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR AN THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
66. Plaintiff realleges and repeats by reference all of the allegations set forth in this
Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
67. Plaintiff conferred a benefit on Defendants in the form of tens of thousands of dollars.
68. Plaintiff spent a substantial amount of his personal income on the heavy landscaping
work described herein by providing said income to Defendants to purchase materials for and complete
the heavy landscaping work.
69. Defendants failed to complete the heavy landscaping work as agreed to and as paid
for.
70. Defendants have been enriched at the expense of Plaintiff.
71. It would be inequitable and unjust to allow Defendants to retain the benefit of
Plaintiff’s funds for work they never completed as agreed to and paid for.
8
10 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
72. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of
Plaintiff in the amount greater than the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that would otherwise
have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Pierce Corporate Veil)
73. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth
in this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
74. That, upon information and belief, Defendants did not possess the formalities and
paraphernalia that are part and parcel of a corporation.
75. That, Pinto was in a position to dominate and control the Company with respect to
the transactions at issue.
76. That, Pinto exerted such dominance and control over the Company to such an extent
that Company’s actions were not its own.
77. That, Pinto intentionally undercapitalized the Company.
78. That Pinto used the Company as a mere device for his own personal use and benefit,
rather than the Company’s, to the detriment of the Company and its customers, including Plaintiff.
79. That, Pinto used his dominance and control of the Company to redirect the
Company’s assets to himself.
80. That, Pinto exerted dominance and control over the Company such that it was an alter
ego of Pinto.
81. That, Pinto maliciously used the Company to damage Plaintiff by, among other things,
redirecting monies paid by Plaintiff to the Company for his individual use and benefit, and refusing
to refund Plaintiff sums due and owing to him, or to purchase materials for the heavy landscaping
work as promised, thereby causing the Company to breach the Parties’ Agreements and Maintenance
Agreement and defraud Plaintiff.
9
11 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
82. That, upon information and belief, Pinto failed to respect the Company’s corporate
formalities and abused that business form by collectively and individually using the Company’s assets
and property for Pinto’s own personal use, without adequate consideration, thereby injuring Plaintiff
by failing to maintain funds adequate to cover amounts due and owing to the Company’s customers,
including Plaintiff.
83. That, upon information and belief, Pinto failed to respect the Company’s corporate
formalities and abused that business form by using it to injure Plaintiff.
84. That, Pinto used the Company to commit fraud and/or wrongs against Plaintiff.
85. That, due to Pinto’s failures to observe even the most basic formalities necessary to
maintain the Company’s corporate form, Pinto should be held personally liable for the Company’s
obligations – including refunding Plaintiff for monies he provided to it for work agreed to but never
completed.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of the Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
86. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in this
Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
87. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a valid and binding agreement.
88. Plaintiff agreed to pay about $42,000.00 to Defendants in exchange for Defendants
heavy landscaping work.
89. Plaintiff paid Defendants pursuant to the Parties’ Agreements and Maintenance
Agreement.
90. Defendants breached their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to
complete services as required by the Parties’ agreements.
10
12 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of their implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount greater than the jurisdictional
limit of all lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Tortious Interference with Contract Against Pinto)
92. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth
in this Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
93. Valid and enforceable contracts existed between Plaintiff and the Company.
94. Pinto was aware of the contracts.
95. Pinto intentionally interfered with the contracts.
96. Pinto caused the Company to breach the contracts.
97. Pinto caused the Company to breach the contracts for his benefit.
98. Pinto personally benefited from the Company’s breach of the contracts.
99. By virtue of the foregoing, Pinto has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff
in the amount greater than the jurisdictional limits of alllower courts that would otherwise have
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants as follows:
(a) On all causes of action against all Defendants compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined at trial;
(b) On all causes of action except for unjust enrichment, against all Defendants, punitive damages
in an amount to be determined at trial;
(c) All of Plaintiff’s costs and disbursements and prejudgment interest;
(d) All of Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses; and
(e) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
11
13 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
Dated: December 20, 2022
Albany, New York
TOPOROWSKI LAW, PLLC
By: _________________________________
Matthew A. Toporowski, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew Rodrigue
P.O. Box 7271
Albany, NY 12224
Tel: (845) 532-3513
matthew.toporowski@gmail.com
12
14 of 15
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022
15 of 15
Preview
FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF COLUMBIA ANDREW RODRIGUE, Plaintiff, -against- SUMMONS PINTOTAL PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., d/b/a GREENFLOW, and MATTHEW PINTO, individually, Defendants. TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Verified Complaint in the above-entitled action enclosed hereweith and to serve a copy of your answer on Plaintiff’s attorneys within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York. In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the Verified Complaint. Plaintiff hereby designates Columbia County as the place of trial. The basis of venue is that Defendants reside in Columbia County. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. 1 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 Dated: December 20, 2022 TOPOROWSKI LAW, PLLC By: _________________________________ Matthew A. Toporowski, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew Rodrigue P.O. Box 7271 Albany, New York 12224 Tel: (845) 532-3513 matthew.toporowski@gmail.com 2 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF COLUMBIA ANDREW RODRIGUE, Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- Jury Trial Demanded PINTOTAL PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., d/b/a GREENFLOW, and MATTHEW PINTO, individually, Defendants. Plaintiff, Andrew Rodrigue, by and through his attorneys, Toporowski Law, PLLC, complaining of Defendants Pintotal Property Services, Inc., doing business as, Greenflow (the “Company”), and Matthew Pinto, individually, (“Pinto” with the Company, “Defendants”), alleges as follows: DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION 1. Defendants solicited Plaintiff for tens of thousands of dollars for heavy landscape work to his property, which Plaintiff paid for, but Defendants failed to complete. 2. Over the course of about a year, Defendants continued to reassure Plaintiff both in writing and verbally in-person that they would complete the work as agreed to. As a result of Defendants’ express assurances, Plaintiff continued to be patient and provided Defendants funds as requested to complete the work agreed to. 3. However, Defendants failed to complete the work they solicited Plaintiff for, and forced Plaintiff to request his money back. Instead of resolving this matter amicably as Plaintiff attempted to do countless times, Defendants ignored Plaintiff. 3 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 4. As a result of Defendants’ fraud, theft and nefarious actions, Plaintiff brings the following causes of action: (i) breach of contract, (ii) fraud, (iii) conversion, (iv) unjust enrichment, (v) pierce corporate veil, (vi) breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and (vii) tortious interference with contract. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Andrew Rodrigue is a natural person, and at all times relevant herein resides in Valatie, New York. 6. The Company is, at all relevant times herein, a domestic business corporation formed and existing under the laws of the state of New York with a principal place of business at 1301 River Street, Suite 107, Valatie, New York 12184. 7. Defendant Matthew Pinto is a natural person, and, upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein resides in Valatie, New York, and is an owner of the Company. VENUE 8. Venue is proper in Columbia County, New York, as a substantial portion of the facts and circumstances that resulted in this action occurred there. 9. Venue is also proper in Columbia County, New York as Defendants reside there and have their principal place of business there. 10. Venue is also proper in Columbia County, New York as Plaintiff resides there. BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. In or about July 2021, Pinto, on behalf of the Company, personally toured Plaintiff’s 2-acre residential property in Valatie, New York. The purpose of Pinto’s visit was to survey and assess Plaintiff’s property for heavy landscaping work. 12. Pinto identified the following items to include in the scope of Defendants’ work: removing pine trees, stripping existing landscaping around Plaintiff’s house to replace it with shrubs, 2 4 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 trees, and grass, adding mulch and metal edging, adding decorative stone, creating mulch beds around existing trees, installing a bluestone walkway to Plaintiff’s pool and deck, removal and replacement of landscaping around Plaintiff’s pool with decorative stone and shrubs, removal and replacement of landscaping around Plaintiff’s shed with decorative stone, metal edging, plants, grasses and also installing artificial turf as necessary. 13. The quote for the foregoing heavy landscaping work that Pinto identified was for about $26,500.00. 14. Plaintiff paid Defendants for the foregoing heavy landscaping work. 15. Shortly thereafter, in or about September 2021, Pinto solicited Plaintiff for more work to his property. 16. Pinto identified the possibility of constructing a gazebo near a firepit. He also included in this additional scope of work: moving an existing fence, installing underground electrical lines from Plaintiff’s home to the firepit area, running a propane line to the firepit area, installing a propone line for access on Plaintiff’s deck, installing underground ethernet cables in the backyard, installing lighting around the pool, extending the pool deck, and creating a concrete foundation for the gazebo near the firepit. 17. The quote for the foregoing additional heavy landscaping work that Pinto solicited Plaintiff for was for about $17,000. 18. Plaintiff paid Defendants for the foregoing heavy landscaping work. 19. All told, Plaintiff paid Defendants about $42,000 for heavy landscaping work. 20. Defendants’ quotes for the foregoing heavy landscaping work described herein were formalized in written estimates that the Parties signed and agreed to (collectively, the “Agreements”). 3 5 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 21. Defendants also agreed to provide landscape maintenance services, including fertilization, weed killer,and seeding, which Plaintiff paid for, but which was incompletely and intermittently performed by Defendants. 22. Defendants’ maintenance responsibilities, which Plaintiff paid for, were the subject of another written estimate that the Parties signed and agreed to (“Maintenance Agreement”). 23. Defendants began and intermittently and incompletely performed the work identified by Pinto and paid for by Plaintiff, but work remained incomplete. 24. Defendants failed to complete work paid for by Plaintiff, and also failed to maintain Plaintiff’s property as agreed to. 25. Defendants breached the Agreements and Maintenance Agreement. 26. As early as the fall of 2021, just months after Defendants agreed and Plaintiff paid for a substantial amount of work, Plaintiff’s property became overgrown and in a similar condition to how it appeared prior to hiring Defendants to service it. 27. Plaintiff repeatedly contacted Defendants to request that work be completed as agreed to and as paid for. 28. Defendants failed to respond timely or if at all. 29. About a year after the Parties’ initial Agreements, the majority of the work agreed to and paid for was still incomplete. 30. Finally, in or about June 2022, Defendants’ Director of Operations, Ellen Thomas, and another employee of Defendants named Eric, came to Plaintiff’s property, and assured him that the work would be completed as agreed to. Defendants’ employees stated that the work could be completed the following week. 4 6 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 31. Pinto expressly vouched for his Director of Operations to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s property was a priority, stating, “Hired a director of operations, started Monday. She hasn’t worked on anything besides making your shit happen.” 32. Defendants’ Director of Operations continued to expressly assure Plaintiff that the work would be competed. She stated by text message “Understood Andrew! I promise you I’m working as fast as I can in it.” She continued, “Monday morning I will do a follow up with everyone involved although I did speak to just about everyone this week.” 33. Defendants’ employees never came back to complete the work as they had promised to do, however. 34. Pinto himself promised to complete the heavy landscaping work to Plaintiff’s property stating, “I can’t wait to finish that fucking yard, promise”, “[w]e’ll get it happening”, “I won’t disappoint”, and “Absolutely not an option for me to screw you over.” 35. Pinto further assured Plaintiff, “Full disclosure We will be working on trust after this payment as there is more work to be done that will have a balance renaming on but I certainly won’t let you down.” 36. Based on Pinto’s assurances, and request to charge Plaintiff’s credit card, stating, “How would you react if I wanted to hit the Amex for some Ching”, Plaintiff paid $7,500 to Defendants for work to be completed as promised. 37. Following months of inaction, Plaintiff at this point again expressed his frustration and dissatisfaction to Defendants for their failure to complete work as agreed to and as assured on several occasions in writing and verbally. 38. In or about July 2022, as a result of Defendants’ continued verbal and written assurances that work would be completed, but itnever actually occurring, Plaintiff requested his money back and to sever the relationship. 5 7 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 39. By this point Plaintiff had paid Defendants about $42,000 for work agreed to that was at best intermittently and incompletely performed. 40. In or about August 2022, Plaintiff again attempted to resolve this matter amicably and requested a refund for work that Defendants agreed to but failed to complete. At this point Defendants became unresponsive having tens of thousands of dollars of Plaintiff’s money, no incentive to return it, and no desire to complete work they agreed to. 41. Plaintiff again requested a refund in or about October 2022. 42. Defendants again failed to respond to Plaintiff’s repeated requests to resolve this matter amicably. 43. As a result of Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiff’s multiple requests to resolve this matter and to return his money for work that was never completed, the instant lawsuit ensued. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract) 44. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 45. Plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable agreement with Defendants for heavy landscaping work. 46. Plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable agreement with Defendants for maintenance work. 47. Defendants were provided good and valuable consideration pursuant to the Agreements and the Maintenance Agreement. 48. Defendants breached the Agreements and Maintenance Agreement. 49. Plaintiff fulfilled his obligations pursuant to the Agreements and Maintenance Agreement. 50. Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendants’ breaches. 6 8 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 51. Plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages in an amount to be determined at trial as a result of Defendants’ breach of contract. 52. Plaintiff’s damages are greater than the jurisdictional limit of all other lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud) 53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 54. Defendants knowingly and intentionally misrepresented their actions Plaintiff. 55. Defendants knowingly and intentionally misled Plaintiff to believe that they were capable to complete the heavy landscaping work and maintenance services when, instead, they were fraudulently converting Plaintiff’s money for their own personal benefit. 56. Defendants’ misrepresentations to Plaintiff were made for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to provide Defendants with more money for their own personal gain, and not to perform work as agreed to. 57. Defendants and their employees repeatedly assured Plaintiff that they were able and planned to complete the work agreed to. 58. Defendants’ Director of Operations, Ellen Thomas, stated by text message, “Understood Andrew! I promise you I’m working as fast as I can in it.” She continued, “Monday morning I will do a follow up with everyone involved although I did speak to just about everyone this week.” 59. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants’ assurances because they were not unreasonable on their face. 60. Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendants’ employees’ assurances because they were not unreasonable on their face. 7 9 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 61. Defendants’ misrepresentations and Defendants’ employees’ misrepresentations to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff’s decision to continue to fund the heavy landscaping and maintenance work. 62. Defendants knew the representations that they made to Plaintiff were false when they made them or made them recklessly. 63. The purpose of Defendants’ fraud was to convert Plaintiff’s funds and enrich themselves at Plaintiff’s expense. 64. Plaintiff suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendants’ fraudulent activities in an amount to be determined at trial together with attorneys’ fees, costs, interest and punitive damages. 65. Plaintiff’s damages are greater than the jurisdictional limit of all other lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction. AS AND FOR AN THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Unjust Enrichment) 66. Plaintiff realleges and repeats by reference all of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 67. Plaintiff conferred a benefit on Defendants in the form of tens of thousands of dollars. 68. Plaintiff spent a substantial amount of his personal income on the heavy landscaping work described herein by providing said income to Defendants to purchase materials for and complete the heavy landscaping work. 69. Defendants failed to complete the heavy landscaping work as agreed to and as paid for. 70. Defendants have been enriched at the expense of Plaintiff. 71. It would be inequitable and unjust to allow Defendants to retain the benefit of Plaintiff’s funds for work they never completed as agreed to and paid for. 8 10 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 72. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff in the amount greater than the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Pierce Corporate Veil) 73. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 74. That, upon information and belief, Defendants did not possess the formalities and paraphernalia that are part and parcel of a corporation. 75. That, Pinto was in a position to dominate and control the Company with respect to the transactions at issue. 76. That, Pinto exerted such dominance and control over the Company to such an extent that Company’s actions were not its own. 77. That, Pinto intentionally undercapitalized the Company. 78. That Pinto used the Company as a mere device for his own personal use and benefit, rather than the Company’s, to the detriment of the Company and its customers, including Plaintiff. 79. That, Pinto used his dominance and control of the Company to redirect the Company’s assets to himself. 80. That, Pinto exerted dominance and control over the Company such that it was an alter ego of Pinto. 81. That, Pinto maliciously used the Company to damage Plaintiff by, among other things, redirecting monies paid by Plaintiff to the Company for his individual use and benefit, and refusing to refund Plaintiff sums due and owing to him, or to purchase materials for the heavy landscaping work as promised, thereby causing the Company to breach the Parties’ Agreements and Maintenance Agreement and defraud Plaintiff. 9 11 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 82. That, upon information and belief, Pinto failed to respect the Company’s corporate formalities and abused that business form by collectively and individually using the Company’s assets and property for Pinto’s own personal use, without adequate consideration, thereby injuring Plaintiff by failing to maintain funds adequate to cover amounts due and owing to the Company’s customers, including Plaintiff. 83. That, upon information and belief, Pinto failed to respect the Company’s corporate formalities and abused that business form by using it to injure Plaintiff. 84. That, Pinto used the Company to commit fraud and/or wrongs against Plaintiff. 85. That, due to Pinto’s failures to observe even the most basic formalities necessary to maintain the Company’s corporate form, Pinto should be held personally liable for the Company’s obligations – including refunding Plaintiff for monies he provided to it for work agreed to but never completed. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of the Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) 86. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 87. Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a valid and binding agreement. 88. Plaintiff agreed to pay about $42,000.00 to Defendants in exchange for Defendants heavy landscaping work. 89. Plaintiff paid Defendants pursuant to the Parties’ Agreements and Maintenance Agreement. 90. Defendants breached their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to complete services as required by the Parties’ agreements. 10 12 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount greater than the jurisdictional limit of all lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Tortious Interference with Contract Against Pinto) 92. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set forth in this Complaint as if set forth fully herein. 93. Valid and enforceable contracts existed between Plaintiff and the Company. 94. Pinto was aware of the contracts. 95. Pinto intentionally interfered with the contracts. 96. Pinto caused the Company to breach the contracts. 97. Pinto caused the Company to breach the contracts for his benefit. 98. Pinto personally benefited from the Company’s breach of the contracts. 99. By virtue of the foregoing, Pinto has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff in the amount greater than the jurisdictional limits of alllower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants as follows: (a) On all causes of action against all Defendants compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial; (b) On all causes of action except for unjust enrichment, against all Defendants, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; (c) All of Plaintiff’s costs and disbursements and prejudgment interest; (d) All of Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses; and (e) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 11 13 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 Dated: December 20, 2022 Albany, New York TOPOROWSKI LAW, PLLC By: _________________________________ Matthew A. Toporowski, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew Rodrigue P.O. Box 7271 Albany, NY 12224 Tel: (845) 532-3513 matthew.toporowski@gmail.com 12 14 of 15 FILED: COLUMBIA COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2022 02:01 PM INDEX NO. E012022019386 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2022 15 of 15