From the very beginning, this case was built on improper service and a denial of basic due process. The 14-day notice was never properly served under the terms of the lease. To this day, entering the tracking number shows no delivery to me at all. The envelope was not addressed to me, and the return address used was not the address listed in the lease for notices. Despite this, the case was allowed to proceed as if valid notice had been given.

The transcripts confirm that my due process rights were violated from the outset and that this proceeding should never have moved forward.

In July 2024, I entered a lease with landlord Dan Lampropoulos for space at 600 US-6, Mahopac, NY. I paid a $7,500 security deposit that included a Good Guy Clause, plus $2,500 in rent for August. I immediately began improving the space because my business was scheduled to open on August 1st. I already had a team on payroll, clients waiting for services, and needed to launch quickly to establish momentum for the holiday season.

What followed was a pattern of behavior that made it impossible to operate, caused significant financial damage, and led to a non-payment lawsuit against me, even though the landlord created the very conditions that prevented normal business operation. He refused to communicate, returned mail, and held $10,000 of my money while I had already invested more than $7,000 in improvements to his property.

From the beginning, basic repairs and obligations he agreed to handle were not completed. These included closing a shared hallway, fixing a leaking window, addressing plumbing and pump issues, repairing a malfunctioning toilet, and more. These failures directly interfered with my ability to open and serve clients.

Despite this, Lampropoulos repeatedly entered the space without proper notice and without performing the required repairs. This raised serious questions about why he was entering at all. One documented incident occurred when he unlocked the door and stepped inside while I was changing. I objected to this immediately in writing.

When I raised concerns about the repairs, delays, and the impact on my business, his tone shifted. Instead of addressing the issues, he made statements that were intimidating and retaliatory. In several recorded communications, he stated, “If you’re good to me, I’ll be good to you. And if you’re bad to me, I’ll be very, very, very bad to you.”

Over time, it became clear what “good to him” actually meant: accepting delays, accepting broken promises, accepting unresolved repairs, accepting his failure to meet his own lease obligations, staying silent, and tolerating his inaction before my business even opened.

Being “good to him” meant tolerating his breaches of the contract he drafted, overlooking his failure to deliver a functional space, and accepting intrusive conduct without objection. No business owner should ever be expected to accept these conditions, and the law does not require it.

By August and September, after multiple unanswered requests for repairs, I notified him that he was putting me in an untenable position and that I might need to relocate if the issues continued. He never responded, refused communication entirely, and ignored a certified letter stating I had no choice but to move. I relocated but did not fully vacate because it was unreasonable to abandon a newly renovated space and a $10,000 deposit without any communication or resolution.

At one point, he came to the window of my new location, photographed my business, and left immediately when I attempted to speak to him. He never attempted to collect rent until the exact moment my security deposit ran out. Then, two days before Thanksgiving, he filed a non-payment case against me, at the busiest and most financially crucial time of the year, despite my clear written explanation that the holiday season was essential to my business. The judge’s emphasis was on concern for the landlord, who was already holding $10,000 of my money and benefiting from completed improvements, while the only party suffering harm was me.

Even after I relocated due to the unworkable and hostile conditions, he refused to accept the keys and represented to the court that an eviction was required. The eviction was issued despite the space being vacant and despite his attorney confirming that fact. It now sits on my record alongside the absurd #widmannvpateman matter, even though the space was re-rented within weeks. The rapid re-rental proves he had no loss and that my improvements directly benefited him.

This is also when a more troubling reality surfaced. The petitioner’s attorney is the Town Attorney. The judge is a part-time judge who works with the Town Attorney as a colleague during the day, with his office located a short distance from the courthouse. This means the landlord’s attorney represents the town during the day and then appears before the same judge at night on behalf of a private client. This relationship was never disclosed to me and raises serious questions about fairness and impartiality.

Ultimately, the court awarded the landlord almost $18,000, despite his retention of my $7,500 security deposit, the improvements I left behind, his refusal to communicate, and his failure to meet his contractual obligations. The lease explicitly stated that each party would pay their own legal fees. I even have a recorded conversation in which I suggested making the prevailing party responsible for fees, and he refused, insisting the lease required each party to bear its own costs. Yet the court awarded him attorney fees anyway, contradicting the lease he required and resulting in unjust enrichment.

The personal and financial fallout was immediate and severe. Shortly after the judgment, my entire staff quit. I had carried them financially for months through delays, relocations, and significant losses. Now I was in a new location with higher rent, no staff, and no working capital. Every dollar intended to stabilize and grow my business was now in Dan Lampropoulos’s pocket.

The timing of his actions and the court’s refusal to consider the impact on my business reveal the truth: he suffered no loss. In fact, he benefited. Between the deposit he kept, the improvements I paid for, the rent he claimed, and the judgment, he gained approximately $36,000 while knowing me for barely three months. Then he collected a new security deposit from the next tenant and re-rented the space immediately. This was not about repairing a wrong or recovering losses. It was unjust enrichment.

The transcripts reflect a process where repairs were not completed, contract terms were ignored unless they benefited him, threatening statements were made, entries occurred without notice, facts were misrepresented, service was improper, and the legal system was used as leverage rather than for resolution.

This case was never about a tenant who failed to pay rent. It was about a landlord who expected compliance without accountability and punished me for refusing to tolerate his inaction, misconduct, and breaches before I ever opened my doors.

What happened here should concern every small business owner, tenant, and resident in this county. The timeline and documents below speak for themselves.