UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TECFOLKS, LLC, Plaintiff, -against- CLAIMTEK SYSTEMS, SYDASOFT, Inc., KYLE FARHAT and NISHAT KURTZ: Defendants.
RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OfFICE
US DiSTRiCT COURT E.D.N.Y
Index No.:* SEP 0 9 2011 *
COMPLAlN ISLAND OFFICE
JURY TRlAL DEMANDED HURLEY,J WALL: M.J.
Plaintiff, Tecfolks, LLC (hereinafter "Tecfolks") by its attorneys, the Law Office of Vincent R Fontana, P.C., complains of defendants Claimtek Systems (hereinafter "Claimtek"), Sydasoft , Inc. (hereinafter "Sydasoft"), Kyle Farhat (hereinafter "Farhat") and Nishat Kurtz (hereinafter ''Kurtz''), as follows:
NATURE OF CLAIM
I. This is an action based on breach of contract, 'fraud in the inducement and to rescind the contract ab initio.
2. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 1332(a)(1), CPLR Section 311 and Business Corporation Law Section 307.
4. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) in that the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the Eastern District of New York.
5. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and resides at 2 Kenneth Street, Plainview, New York 11803, which is within the Eastern District ofNew York.
6. Upon information and belief, defendant ClaimTek Systems is a California corporation doing business in the state of New York.
7. Upon information and belief, defendant Sodasoft is a California corporation doing business in the state of New York.
8. Upon information and belief, defendant Farhat is president of ClaimTek. Farhat is sued herein personally and in his capacity as president of ClaimTek.
9. Upon information and belief, defendant Kurtz is the Business Manager at ClaimTek and is sued herein in official and personal capacity.
10. On or about November 30, 2010 the parties purportedly entered into a contract whereby defendant was to provide plaintiff a medical claims processing system for medical insurance claims and billing center functions, including but not limited to the following: training manuals, video tapes, medical billing software, technical support, and other items related to medical claims processing (ExhibitA).
11. In. consideration for the promises made by defendants before and after November 3, 2010, plaintiff paid defendants the sum of $15,095 on signing the contract and executed a promissory note in the amount of$5,000 (Exhibit "A").
12. Pursuant to paragraph 13 on the Addendum to the contract defendants were to provide the costs and details of the dealership at the time of signing the contract. However, defendants failed to provide plaintiff Electronic Medical Records ("EMR") distributorshipand failed to disclose the costs, details of the EMR dealeIership and contracts.
13. Defendants failed to provide technical support and correct errors in the MedOffice software in violation of the terms and conditions of paragraph 15 of the contract, even when the defendants were advised of the problems.
14. Defendants failed to provide technical support and correct errors in the DentOffice software in violation of the terms and conditions of paragraph 15 of the contract, even when the defendants were advised of the problems.
15. Defendants were in violation of paragraph 3 of the contract when it failed to provide a customized Enterprise-Level, Optimized Website valued at $18,000 under the Preferred Plus package.
16. Defendants are in violation of Section 16(i) of the contract addendum because it failed to provide 1700 new brochures.
17. Defendants were in default of Sections 3 and 5 of the contract when they failed to provide full technical, business and marketing support.
18. Defendants are in violation of Section 4 of the contract When it failed to supply all services and support to plaintiff.
19. Defendants arc in violation of Section 12 of the contract by putting its logo on all promotional material that plaintiff was to distribute to its customers, thus making that material useless.
20. Defendants falsely advertised that it provides Certification Commission for Health Information Technology ("CCHIT") and information necessary to function under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("ARRA").
21. Defendants violated the contract by not providing full tech support 24/7 as stated it would.
22. Defendants violated the terms of the contract because it failed to provide plaintiff proper training. TIle DVD's and CD's were of poor quality and full of errors.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
23. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and restates each and every allegation set forth.in paragraphs "1" through 22" as if fully set forth herein.
24. Defendants knew at the time it fraudulently entered into the contract with plaintiff that it was incapable of satisfying the terms and conditions of the contract.
25. Defendants' fraudulent conduct was intentional and engaged in to induce plaintiff to enter into a contract with defendants that it would not have done had the defendants not engaged in the fraudulent misrepresentations.
26. Plaintiff has been damages in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $250,000.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
27. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and restates each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs "1" through "26" as if fully set forth herein.
28. Defendants' conduct as set forth herein constitutes a breach of the terms and conditions of the contract to the detriment ofthe plaintiff.
29. Plaintiff has been damages in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $250,000.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court cnter judgment against defendants:
(1) voiding the contract between plaintiff and defendants ab initio thus declaring the contract null and void;
(2) in the alternative, declaring that the defendants are in breach of theterms and conditions ofthe contract.
Dated: Garden City, New York September 6, 2011
Law Office of Vincent R. Fontana P.C. .
BY~,~ Vincent R. Fontana
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1010 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, New York 11530