Skip to main content

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO REACHES AGREEMENTS WITH SIX HOME HEATING OIL/PROPANE PROVIDERS OVER DECEPTIVE CONTRACTS & PRACTICES

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that his office has reached settlements with six New York-based home heating oil companies serving the Hudson Valley, Catskills, Southern Tier and North Country for various violations over the past year, including improperly adding surcharges for credit card payments and failing to provide required notifications to consumers.

The agreements with Paraco Gas Corporation, Depew Oil Company, Inc., Vaincourt Fuels, Wilson Oil, Kuno Oil and Russo Fuel end various deceptive practices and provide refunds to more than 500 consumers who were wrongfully charged, as well as penalties and costs to the state.

“Home heating costs account for a substantial portion of most hard-working New Yorkers household budgets, and any illegitimate or surprise costs added to the bill are unacceptable,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “It is particularly disturbing when companies take advantage of consumers purchasing such a basic and needed service. I continue to urge all consumers to thoroughly review contracts before signing and to alert my office if they believe they are being subjected to misleading or deceptive acts.”

Rye Brook-based Paraco Gas Corporation services approximately 65,000 customers and has offices in the Hudson Valley, Catskills and Southern Tier. The Attorney General’s Office found that Paraco sent deceptive contracts that may have led consumers to believe they were signing up for fuel delivery for the 2008-2009 heating season only. However, the contracts constituted a 7-year commitment. The company also failed to notify customers in advance over automatic contract renewals.

The Attorney General’s agreement requires Paraco to reform its practices and contract language and pay $12,000 in penalties and costs to the state. The agreement also prohibits Paraco from penalizing customers who did not receive adequate notification of contract renewal and wish to cancel service.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more