Long Island family living in 'misery' in a camper after contractor gutted their house then vanished with $96K
'It's misery,' she told News 12. 'And I thought I was supposed to be moving into my house today. It's awful.'
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it
The family had big plans to create their dream home and hired Robert Cortese of Tool Time Construction to do the work. In May, they paid him $96,200 and he began tearing out walls.
Since then, the family said, no work has been done. No materials or appliances have been ordered. What's left behind are bare studs, loose wires and missing doors and railings.
News 12 reporters tried to speak with Cortese, but he offered little explanation.
'They say you took $96,000 but didn't do the work. Can you explain that?' asked reporters in a visit to Cortese's home.
'That's a lie,' Cortese replied. He then asked the news crew to leave and gave no further comment.
Salentino later found out that Cortese is listed on Suffolk County Consumer Affairs' 'Wall of Shame' for operating without a contractor's license. The public registry includes contractors' names, businesses, aliases, addresses and the reason they're listed.
Cortese's entry includes the Tool Time Construction Group, his addresses, and states he was first listed in June of 2023 — nearly two years before the Salentinos hired him.
[Consumer Affairs] Commissioner Wayne Rogers told Newsday that the agency does have a fund to reimburse homeowners up to $5,000 when licensed contractors do poor work. But there's a catch — the contractor must be licensed.
"If they're not licensed, there's nothing we can do," he said.
Since Cortese is unlicensed, the Salentino family is ineligible for that fund.
In the meantime, they remain in their camper while a new contractor tries to complete the home. But the family is facing new delays and higher costs as that company undoes Cortese's work. Suffolk County police are investigating.
Read more: No millions? No problem. With as little as $10, here's of diversified assets usually only available to major players
Stories like the Salentino family's are all too common — and unfortunately, legal protections can be limited, especially when unlicensed contractors are involved. Without access to the Consumer Affairs fund, the family's only remaining option may be civil court, which is costly and time-consuming.
If you're in a similar situation, here are some steps you can take:
File a complaint with your local Consumer Affairs department or licensing agency.
Document everything: Save contracts, receipts, photos and any communications with the contractor.
Report suspected fraud to police, especially if you believe money was taken with no intent to complete the job.
Consult with a lawyer if the financial loss is significant.
Check for local recovery funds, which some counties or state agencies offer for licensed contractor failures.
The best protection, though, starts before you make any payments. Here's how to safeguard yourself:
Verify their license: In New York, contractors must be licensed through the county. Suffolk County has a searchable public registry.
Check the 'Wall of Shame' or similar databases that track unlicensed or fraudulent contractors.
Read online reviews: Look at Google, company websites and forums. Search the business name for complaints.
Avoid large upfront payments: Reputable contractors typically ask for a deposit, with additional payments tied to project milestones.
Get everything in writing: A contract should include a timeline, materials list and payment schedule.
With their savings drained and their home unfinished, the Salentino family is left trying to recover emotionally and financially. As the investigation continues, they hope their story prevents another family from seeing their dream fall apart.
This tiny hot Costco item has skyrocketed 74% in price in under 2 years — but now the retail giant is restricting purchases. Here's how to buy the coveted asset in bulk
Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you?
Money doesn't have to be complicated — sign up for the free Moneywise newsletter for actionable finance tips and news you can use.
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Famous for his fearless bravado as a pro wrestler, Hulk Hogan won one of his most notable victories in a Florida courtroom by emphasizing his humiliation and emotional distress after a news and gossip website published a video of Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. A 2016 civil trial that pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebrities ended with a jury awarding Hogan a whopping $140 million in his lawsuit against Gawker Media. Though both parties later settled on $31 million to avoid protracted appeals, the case put Gawker out of business. It also ensured Hogan, who died Thursday at age 71, and his legal team would have a long-term impact on media law. The case showed that, in certain circumstances, celebrities could persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true. The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. ___ Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
Boston Globe
6 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Advertisement The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Advertisement Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. Advertisement News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
CNBC
6 hours ago
- CNBC
Astronomer HR chief Kristin Cabot resigns following Coldplay 'kiss-cam' incident
Days after Astronomer CEO Andy Byron resigned from the tech startup, the HR exec who was with him at the infamous Coldplay concert has left as well. "Kristin Cabot is no longer with Astronomer, she has resigned," a company spokesperson wrote in an email to CNBC Thursday. Cabot was the company's chief people officer. Cabot and Byron, who is married with children, were shown in an intimate moment on the 'kiss cam' at a recent Coldplay show in Boston, and immediately hid when they saw their faces on the big screen. Lead singer Chris Martin said, "Either they're having an affair or they're just very shy." An attendee's video of the incident went viral. Byron resigned from the company on Saturday. Both Cabot and Byron have been removed the company's leadership team webpage. Pete DeJoy, Astronomer's interim CEO, wrote in a post earlier this week that recent and unexpected national attention has turned the company into "a household name." In May, the New York-based company, which commercializes open source software, announced a $93 million investment round led by Bain Ventures and other investors, including Salesforce Ventures.
