hereafter learn'

4. Any and all assets of the Defendant about which the Plaintiff may
personal property, including,
5. Any assets andior real, personal, tangible and/or intangible

by reason of the Applicant's

but not limited to, any assets and/orproperfy which may be disclosed

Motion for Disclosure of Assets.

AND YoU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to sufiIInON DCfENdANt, FRANK E.

190 Derby Avenue, Derby, Connecticut, to appear before the Superior

Court, Judicial
LAZOWSKI,
such appearance
District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut, and
of appearance with the clerk
should be made by the Defendant or its attorney, by filing a written notice

to answer to Plaintiff,
of the Court, on or before the second day following the return date, then and there

and says:
M&O CORPORATION, in a civil action in which the Plaintiff complains

FIRST COUNT: ruNJUST ENRICHMENT)

1. plaintiffM&O Corporation ("M&O") is a Connecticut corporation, with a main office

located at 164 Alex Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut'

Z. plaintiff provides a variety of HVAC related services to industrial commercial

County, New York'

institutional and residential customers throughout Connecticut and in Westchester
with Plaintiff on or about
3. Defendant Frank E. Lazowski ("Lazowski") began employment

26,2010'
January 19, 1988 and worked for Plaintiff until his resignation on February

10
 His
4. During the course of his employment, Defendant was a sales person/project manager.

he sold which
duties involved sales of commercial HVAC equipment and managing the projects

included, among other things, ordering equipment and accessories, coordinating

work with M&O

workers and subcorttractors, job billing and approval of supplies and vendor invoices'

5. During the course of his employment, Lazowski devised and engaged in a scheme

("Reinhart").
whereby he submitted fake M&O purchase orders to an existing supplier, Ronald Reinhart

The purchase orders submitted by Lazowski to Reinhart, in many instances, reference

acfual ongoing

M&O projects, but Lazowski instructed Reinhart not to supply the equipment listed on the purchase

order but, rather, to simply submit to M&O an invoice corresponding to the purchase order'

6. At Lazowski's instruction and direction, Reinhart submitted multiple invoices to M&O

for equipment that Lazowski, in fact, did not order and that M&O did not receive. Because the invoices

referenced projects for which Lazowski had responsibility, the invoices were forwarded to Lazowski
for

approval.

7. Upon receipt of these invoices, Lazowski approved payment for the amount stated and

M&O tendered payment to Reinhart.

g. Upon Reinhart's receipt of these payments, Reinhart deposited the funds received from

M&O and split the amount received with Lazowski in the amounts that Lazowski directed, with the

11
lion's share going to Lazowski.

g.Reinhart'spaymentstoLazowskiweremadebycheck.
payments of at least
10. As a result of Lazowski's above-described scheme, M&O made

$50,000.00 for accessories and equipment it never received.

above-described
11. Lazowski has benefited as a result of receiving the proceeds from the

scheme.

12. The benefit to Lazowski's unjust because M&O received no value for the payments it

made to Reinhart which were split between Reinhart and Lazowski.

13. Lazowski's receipt of these sums operates to M&O's detriment'

SECOND COUNT: (CONVERSION)

1.-13 paragraphs l-13 of the First Count are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1

through 13 of this Second Count.

14. Lazowski's receipt and retention of money paid by M&O as a result of his scheme
as

described above, constitutes a wrongful use and conversion of those funds'

Lazowski also authorizedthepurchase of equipment and materials through

M&O that
15.
were paid for by M&o but not utilized for M&o projects and, instead, converted for his own personal

benefit.

!2
 16. As a result of Lazowski's conversion, M&o has suffered damages'

THIRD COUNT: (CIV[ THEFT)

as paragraphs 1 through l6 of this

1.-16. paragraphs 1-16 of the Second Count are incorporated

Third Count.
knowing that
17. Lazowski received and accepted the funds tendered to him by Reinhart,

those funds were paid by M&o as a result of Lazowski's scheme to wrongfully obtain payment for

equipment never actually ordered or delivered'

18. Lazowski's conduct constitutes a civil theft'

19. As a result of Lazowski's civil theft, M&O has suffered damages'

FOURTH COUNT: (CUTPA)

paragraph 1-16 ofthe Second Count are incorporated as paragraphs I through 16 ofthis
L-I6.
Fourth Count.

or deceptive acts or
17. Lazowski,s acts, as alleged, constitute unfair competition and unfair

practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S.

section 42'lr0a et' seq'

l g. M&O has suffered an ascertainable loss by Lazowski's acts, as alleged.

r3