New York’s Staten Island. A solar energy company that operates on Staten Island and elsewhere is the target of a number of lawsuits alleging discriminatory behavior, misleading promises, and cost misrepresentation.
A couple from New Springville has filed a civil case in the state Supreme Court in St. George, claiming that what started out as a salesman at their house promising them significant discounts has now become a mountain of unforeseen expenditures.
Meanwhile, the same business has been the target of other cases in the New York City region, including one that the Legal Aid Society took on in a federal court in Brooklyn.
Panels underperforming, electric bills the same, suit alleges
A couple from New Springville claims that during several meetings with a Sunco sales representative at their house in 2022, they were informed that solar panels would effectively remove their Con Edison payment.
According to the lawsuit, they were informed that they would require seven panels to meet their utility needs, which would be enough to power a 1500 square foot residence.
According to Leonard Policastri, 66, he informed the representative—whom he named in court documents as Mitchell Sims—that he had previously had his roof inspected by another business to see if solar power was practical.
According to him, the previous business had told him that the 1,500 square foot property would not be able to get the required amount of solar energy since there was not enough roof space to fit more than seven panels.
However, according to the lawsuit, Sims reassured them that Sunco’s panels are the most modern, effective, and robust, capable of heating their pool and, in theory, an electric stove in addition to powering the entire house.
According to the complaint, Policastri and his wife, Rhonda, 62, who is also included as a plaintiff in the case, were misled into thinking that the solar system would effectively remove their Con Edison costs.
According to the lawsuit, Sunco’s contractors installed the panels in March 2023, but they ultimately failed to produce enough electricity for the residence.
The couple’s lawyer, Gary DeFilippo, actually asserts in court documents that 16 panels would be necessary to adequately power the property and lower, not completely eliminate, Con Edison payments.
Leonard Policastri stated in an affidavit that he has subsequently discovered that the energy they are getting is insufficient to operate even one electrical device, much less the 1,500-square-foot mansion.
The couple wrote to Sunco to ask why there was a difference. They claim they were informed they would experience savings as soon as the solar system turned on or became operational.
However, DeFilippo said that they have not noticed any decrease in their electricity bills in the nearly two years after the panels were put in place.
According to the lawsuit, they were informed that Sims was no longer employed by Sunco, which is headquartered in upstate New York, when they reached out to speak with Sims.
But according to a transcript of the hearing in November 2024, DeFilippo informed the judge that he still thought Sims worked for Sunco.
Sims makes his own exuberant online movies in which he advertises solar panels and calls himself New York’s roof man.
Have you had enough of Con Edison’s outrageous electricity bill? In one video, he asks.
According to Sims in the video, the solar panel installation will eventually result in a Con Edison bill of $0. I’m available to assist you.
This week, Sims did not respond to a request for comment.
Meanwhile, according to court documents, the lawsuit has been forced into binding arbitration.
Deceptive loans, complaint alleges
The lawsuit claims that the couple was informed that the solar system would cost roughly $65,000. However, once the plaintiff included the expense on their federal, state, and local tax returns, the total cost would be little less than $28,000.
In court filings, they claimed to have seen a cost estimate that showed a monthly cost of $345, which would decrease to $147 after the tax benefits. According to the lawsuit, they were informed that their loan payments would be $0 for the first year and $147 a month for the following 24 years.
According to the lawsuit, Sims also assured them that the solar panels were guaranteed for 25 years, the modifications to their roof would be protected from damage for five years, and the installation of the panels would be free of charge.
The plaintiff e-signed the installation agreement on the Sims tablet computer after Leonard Policastri was informed that his finance credit had been granted, according to the complaint.
Policastri, however, claims that no financial agreement was revealed to him. According to DeFilippo, the couple was not given paper copies of the documents they had signed or the tax rebate form for the federal, state, and local tax benefits.
The lender named in the case is Oakland, California-based Solar Mosaic Inc.
In December 2023, the couple received a $368 monthly charge from Solar Mosaic, which they claimed went against what Sims had promised them.
In an affidavit, Policastri said, “Mitchell Sims persuaded me that we would succeed if the Con Edison bill was repealed and I received my federal, state, and city rebates, which he never stated we would not receive for three to five years.”
According to the lawsuit, a Solar Mosaic salesperson threatened to place a lien on their home if they didn’t pay after they questioned the price Sims had previously given them, allegedly on Sunco’s behalf.
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that Mosaic failed to furnish the plaintiffs with copies of the Sunco application that they were informed was submitted to the bank for project finance, despite their repeated requests for it.
In addition to punitive penalties for Sunco and Solar Mosaic’s willfully misleading statements and wantonly deceptive actions, the plaintiffs are requesting damages from Sunco and Solar Mosaic for money lost and the revocation of the Sunco Installment Agreement and the Mosaic Finance Agreement.
The lawsuit does not name Sims as a defendant.
Sunco responds in court filings
The Syosset, New York-based Sunco is also listed online as ATTYX. The LLC was incorporated in 2018 and has an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau.
An counsel for Sunco responded to the aforementioned case by partially stating that, if any misconduct occurred, it was committed by the couple for violating their signed contract or by a third party. which the business has no control over.
According to Sunco at the time, the plaintiffs’ own violation of their respective agreements with the defendants was the cause of whatever damages they may have incurred.
Joseph P. Asselta, a New York-based construction law attorney, was requested to speak on the company’s behalf this week, stating that Sunco has no more comments until the arbitration is concluded.
S.I. judge: Slipshod and carelessness
This image, taken on Wednesday, March 20, 2024, shows the Staten Island Courthouse located at 26 Central Ave. in St. George. (Jan Somma-Hammel/Staten Island Advance)Somma-Hammel, Jan
During the legal proceedings, Sunco’s lawyers provided a Solar Mosaic funding agreement that they said Leonard Policastri had signed.
Policastri claims that he did not sign the electronic signature. He also says he didn’t give anyone permission to sign on his behalf.
A copy of a Sunco installment agreement bearing his electronic signature was also presented by the defense; however, the address on it was that of a neighbor.
Judge Ronald Castorina signed off on a written decision and order issued in May on arbitration in the case, stating that it showed Sunco’s sales representative was negligent and sloppy in finishing the contract.
Several ongoing lawsuits
Sunco Solar is the target of numerous other lawsuits, including two on Staten Island, that have been filed in state and federal courts for alleged dubious business activities.
The Legal Aid Society filed a case in September in a federal court in Brooklyn, claiming Sunco engaged in dishonest business activities, such as fraudulent activity, false advertising, and expense misrepresentations.
According to a press release from the nonprofit legal group, the corporations have purposefully targeted homeowners and elders in communities of color through their door-to-door representatives.
The press statement went on to say that homeowners were hit with monthly payments that were much greater than what they had been told after signing an agreement.
The complaint was brought on behalf of Claver Campbell, a 75-year-old resident from Queens who was allegedly forced into an agreement by Sunco and Solar Mosaic by forging her signature while she was on a fixed income.
According to a recent press release issued by Legal Aid, she was informed that she owes more over $500 per month after being told by several Sunco salespeople that her bill would be $184.
Campbell stated in an interview with New York Focus that “everything he told me sounded so good.” If only I knew, boy.
Complaints against solar industry
Customer complaints against the home rooftop solar industry have skyrocketed in recent years, according to an August NPR article.
The research claims that since 2018, the number of one-star ratings on Solar Reviews has increased by almost 1,000%.
Prosecutors nationwide have launched criminal investigations in response to complaints of deceptive financing arrangements and high-pressure sales methods.
Staten Island court news
-
Sentenced in fatal shotgun blast on Staten Island, inmate meets with parole board
-
Staten Island man, 24, allegedly fled patrol car after arrest on gun charge
-
Lawyer for unconscious man allegedly found with gun, drugs on S.I. wants hearing on evidence admissibility
-
Staten Island man, 31, charged in holding cell assault found unfit to proceed
-
Man who shot cop in Staten Island drug raid sentenced before sobbing family, dozens of NYPD
+ There are no comments
Add yours