Investigative Documentation

What Have Wayne Wahrsager and Kenneth Kirschenbaum Been Up To?

A public-record archive of alarm contract litigation, customer accounts, corporate filings, and court findings involving NY Merchants Protective, Commercial Fire & Security, United States Merchants Protective, and Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum.

Purpose and Limits of This Archive

This website presents public court records, public reviews, corporate records, screenshots, audio/source material, and first-person accounts to create a single source for publicly sourced matter regarding a pattern of ongoing conduct.

Research status: This is a living archive. As the research continues, additional public records, source materials, screenshots, corrections, clarifications, and first-person accounts may be added, reorganized, revised, or removed. Readers should treat this page as an evolving research file and review the underlying sources directly.

This site does not ask readers to conclude that any person or company committed any crime or civil wrong unless a specific court finding or source is identified. Where terms such as fraud, extortion, racketeering, Lanham Act violation, tortious interference, RICO, or similar words appear, they are quoted from third-party source material, identified as court findings, or raised as questions for journalists, attorneys, media, affected customers, and the public to evaluate.

The purpose of this archive is to state documented facts, preserve source material, identify recurring allegations, and ask questions that may warrant further reporting, legal review, or public scrutiny. Allegations are identified as allegations. Court findings are identified as court findings. Readers should review the underlying records and sources directly.


Why did Kenneth Kirschenbaum, Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, Wayne Wahrsager, Michael Gordon, related alarm companies and others maliciously seek to destroy the businesses, reputations and lives of over 2,000 of their own clients who came to them for protection?

This archive is about lawsuits filed by New York Merchants Protective Co., United States Merchants Protective Co., and Commercial Fire & Security, Inc. — companies publicly connected in these records to Wayne Wahrsager, Eric Wahrsager, Aaron Wahrsager, and Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. — against people who trusted them to protect their livelihoods: customers, former customers, small businesses, business owners, and individuals listed as defendants in New York court records.

WebCivil records reviewed for this site show New York Merchants Protective Co., United States Merchants Protective Co., and Commercial Fire & Security, Inc. appearing as plaintiffs in 1,919 documented case rows. The cases were brought against people and businesses listed in the court system as defendants. The documented plaintiff-side litigation was handled by Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. in the case records reviewed.

For journalists, attorneys, affected customers, and the public, the core question is whether these records describe ordinary contract enforcement, or whether they reflect a recurring pattern involving disputed long-term alarm agreements, customer confusion, service disputes, lawsuits, default judgments, and post-judgment collection pressure. This section is a research summary, not a finding by a court.

Questions Raised by the Pattern

Do these records reflect a predatory business model? If so, did the model become predatory over time, or was it designed that way from the beginning? Was high-volume litigation part of the business model from the start?

1,919
Documented WebCivil case rows / lawsuits across the entities reviewed
1,806
Unique defendant names identified from the WebCivil defendant field
890
Rows where the listed defendant appears to be a natural person rather than a business entity
As you read these records, ask what the case index alone cannot answer: How many lives were pushed off course? How many businesses were destroyed? How many people filed bankruptcy? How many people lost their livelihood? How many people suffered emotional harm? Questions this archive asks readers to keep in mind
  1. Some customers report that a technician visited a small business and requested a signature on what the customer understood to be a routine service or work-confirmation document.

  2. Some customers report later being shown a 5-to-10-year monitoring contract that they say they did not knowingly review, receive, or approve at the time of signing.

  3. Some customer accounts describe service disputes, false-alarm issues, dispatch disputes, or difficulty obtaining service after complaints.

  4. Some customers report that when they attempted to cancel, the company relied on a multi-year contract and demanded payment for the remaining term.

  5. WebCivil records show 1,919 documented lawsuits / case rows across the entities reviewed, including 1,857 filed by NYMP in New York courts.

  6. Public court records also show default judgments, post-judgment proceedings, and other collection activity in some cases. The circumstances and merits of each case require individual review.

What the Alarm Case Files Add

Additional filings reviewed for this archive do not prove every allegation on this site. They do, however, make the customer-lawsuit pattern harder to dismiss as isolated billing disputes. Across bank, receiver, competitor, and customer-defendant filings, the recurring subject is the same: customer contracts, customer accounts, customer lists, contract custody, contract transfer, and contract enforcement.

The damaging inference is not simply that one customer had a dispute. The damaging inference is that the paperwork used to sue customers appears repeatedly inside larger disputes over financing, receivership, account ownership, related entities, and alleged customer-list misuse.

The sharp question is not whether every single customer dispute was valid or invalid. The sharp question is whether high-volume lawsuits later relied on contract files whose originals, custody, ownership, and authenticity should have been independently scrutinized. Investigative inference from the alarm case files

In His Own Words: Serge Kannon

Court Record: Legal Identity

Case Number: CV-005491-98/QU  |  Court: Queens County Civil Court  |  Plaintiff: New York Merchants Protective Co.  |  Defendant (WebCivil): SERGE KHANIMOV  |  Co-defendant: Time Zone, Inc.
The site author’s current legal name is Serge Kannon, legally changed from Sergey Khanimov. WebCivil and the court filing list the defendant as SERGE KHANIMOV. Co-defendant: Time Zone, Inc. (watch repair shop).


Key Individuals

Wayne Wahrsager

Wayne Wahrsager — Founder/CEO, NMP Holdings Corp.; General Manager, Commercial Fire & Security (photo sourced from public records)

Founder / CEO, NMP Holdings Corp.; General Manager, Commercial Fire & Security (per BBB) · commercialfireandsecurity.com

The central public-record figure connecting NYMP and Commercial Fire & Security. Founder and operator of NMP Holdings Corp. A court-appointed receiver terminated him from NYMP in 2011 during Bank of America litigation (see Receivership Context in Section 3). Public records link him to Commercial Fire & Security as General Manager (BBB) at 75 W. Merrick Road, Freeport, NY. The company's own website is commercialfireandsecurity.com.

A federal court found Commercial Fire & Security, Wayne Wahrsager, and Steven Moran liable for Lanham Act false designation and tortious interference in General Security Services Corp. v. Commercial Fire & Security, Inc. The Second Circuit affirmed in 2024. See Court Findings.

Eric Wahrsager

Eric Wahrsager — CEO, United States Merchants Protective Co., Inc.; VP, NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp.

CEO, United States Merchants Protective Co., Inc.; VP, NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp. · usmerchantsprotective.com · (855) 637-5400

Wayne Wahrsager's son. Became CEO of US Merchants Protective Co., Inc., incorporated December 15, 2010 — the same month NYMP court filings ceased. Also serves as VP of NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp. Public records associate Eric Wahrsager with United States Merchants Protective, and his name appears in Friedman v. Wahrsager docket materials. All associations cited here are drawn from public corporate filings and court records.

Aaron Wahrsager

Aaron Wahrsager — President, NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp.

President, NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp.

Wayne Wahrsager's son. President of NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp., incorporated June 30, 2011 as a Virginia foreign corporation operating from the same Freeport, NY address. Florida licensing records list Aaron L. Wahrsager d/b/a NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp. at 75 W. Merrick Road, Freeport, NY, confirming the address connection across state licensing systems. NationWide's own website and contact page list the Freeport NY 11520 address. The company's homepage states it has served security dealers since 1972 and describes itself as "a family-owned business." Source: nationwidedigital.com

Kenneth Kirschenbaum

Kenneth Kirschenbaum — Managing Partner, Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. (photo sourced from firm's public website)

Managing Partner, Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C.; Registered Process Agent, NMP Holdings Corp. · kirschenbaumesq.com · 516-747-6700 · 200 Garden City Plaza, Garden City, NY 11530

The firm's own website (kirschenbaumesq.com) describes Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. as founded in 1977 and "one of Long Island's most prominent and well-respected mid-size general practice law firms." The firm sells alarm, security, and fire contracts directly to alarm companies ("Purchase a Contract") AND provides litigation services to enforce those contracts in court. The firm's own published testimonials include one stating: "Due to the contract that you provided us, we won our case against the former customer and will now be able to collect the $45k that we are owed! The judge specifically stated that had we not had this contract, we would not have won the case."

The firm is registered process agent for NMP Holdings Corp. and appears as plaintiff counsel in the NYMP and successor-entity litigation documented in Section 3.

Jennifer Kirschenbaum

Jennifer Kirschenbaum — Partner, Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. (photo sourced from firm's public website)

Partner, Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. · kirschenbaumesq.com · 516-747-6700 ext. 302

The firm's own website lists Jennifer Kirschenbaum as a partner at ext. 302 (jennifer@kirschenbaumesq.com). Security industry sources describe Jennifer Kirschenbaum as part of the Kirschenbaum alarm-law practice team. This site does not claim she personally prosecuted any specific NYMP or successor-entity case; any such finding would require direct case-record confirmation. Her listing is included here as a matter of public record regarding the firm's personnel, which the firm itself publishes.

Stacy Spector

Stacy Spector — Partner, Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. (photo sourced from firm's public website)

Partner, Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C.; Concierge Program Coordinator for alarm-industry clients · kirschenbaumesq.com · 516-747-6700 ext. 304

The firm's own website states that Stacy Spector began as a law clerk with Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum in 2003 and became a partner in 2010. The profile describes her as Chair of the Real Estate Department, a transactional attorney representing buyers and sellers in alarm-system transactions, and the firm's Concierge Program Coordinator for alarm-industry clients. The same profile states that she serves as Chief Administrative Counsel to Kenneth Kirschenbaum in his role as a United States Bankruptcy Trustee. This site does not claim she personally prosecuted any specific NYMP or successor-entity case unless a specific court record is cited; her listing is included because the firm itself publishes her role in alarm-industry transactions and administration.


Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum Public Team Roster: People Who May Have Relevant Knowledge

Why This Roster Is Included

Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum publicly lists the people below on its own "Our Team" page. This section does not claim that every person listed participated in, approved, or knew about any disputed conduct. Inclusion here is not an accusation of wrongdoing.

Because this archive raises questions about alarm-contract forms, contract sales, client intake, high-volume litigation, collection communications, default-judgment workflow, post-judgment enforcement, document retention, and file custody, the public roster is preserved as a list of possible knowledge holders. Appropriate scrutiny means asking role-specific questions, seeking documents, and identifying who handled which parts of the work - not assuming guilt by employment.

Source: Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public attorney-bios / team page, reviewed July 9, 2026. Titles, practice areas, emails, and photos below are drawn from that public page unless otherwise noted.

Neil Ackerman, Esq. - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Neil Ackerman, Esq.

Bankruptcy

Firm profile
nackerman@kirschenbaumesq.com

Kieran X. Bastible, Esq. - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Kieran X. Bastible, Esq.

Commercial Litigation, Employment Law

Firm profile
kbastible@kirschenbaumesq.com

Maureen Beil, Esq. - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Maureen Beil, Esq.

Healthcare Law, Family Law, Litigation, Burglar & Fire Alarm / Collections

Firm profile
mbeil@kirschenbaumesq.com

Jason Block - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Jason Block

Firm-listed team member

Firm profile
jblock@kirschenbaumesq.com

Jennifer Kirschenbaum, Esq. - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Jennifer Kirschenbaum, Esq.

Healthcare Transactional, Compliance and General Practice; Burglar and Fire Alarm Industry Representation

Firm profile
jennifer@kirschenbaumesq.com

Ken Kirschenbaum, Esq. - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Ken Kirschenbaum, Esq.

Bankruptcy, General Litigation, Burglar & Fire Alarm Industry, General Practice

Firm profile
ken@kirschenbaumesq.com

Samuel Kirschenbaum, Esq. - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Samuel Kirschenbaum, Esq.

Firm page lists this profile as "In Memory"

Firm profile

Sarah Masheyev - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Sarah Masheyev

Firm-listed team member

Firm profile
smasheyev@kirschenbaumesq.com

Eugene Mincone, Esq. - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Eugene Mincone, Esq.

Transactional, Real Estate

Firm profile
emincone@kirschenbaumesq.com

Jaqueline Montesino - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Jaqueline Montesino

Firm-listed team member

Firm profile
jmontesino@kirschenbaumesq.com

Jodi L. Perlman, Esq. - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Jodi L. Perlman, Esq.

Healthcare Law

Firm profile
jperlman@kirschenbaumesq.com

Daniel Shafer, Esq. - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Daniel Shafer, Esq.

Litigation, Collections

Firm profile
dshafer@kirschenbaumesq.com

Stacy Spector, Esq. - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Stacy Spector, Esq.

Bankruptcy, Commercial & Residential Real Estate, Healthcare, Employment

Firm profile
sspector@kirschenbaumesq.com

Linda Giovanniello - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Linda Giovanniello

Collections

Firm profile

Wendy Gonzalez - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Wendy Gonzalez

Collections

Firm profile

Kathleen Lampert - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Kathleen Lampert

Collections

Firm profile

Ella Reynolds - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Ella Reynolds

Collections

Firm profile

Dorothy Thomas - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Dorothy Thomas

Healthcare

Firm profile

Eileen Wagda - photo from Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum public team page

Eileen Wagda

Alarm

Firm profile


Public Accounts: In Their Own Words

Do You Know Any of These People?

If you recognize any name on this page — from the public accounts below, from the defendant lists in the Case Index, or from your own experience with these companies — please consider letting them know this page exists.

Many of the people named in court records may not know that other cases involving similar companies and counsel exist in public databases. This page is intended to help people locate records and compare documentation.

You do not need to have a personal claim yourself to help. If you know someone who was sued by NY Merchants Protective Co., Commercial Fire & Security, or United States Merchants Protective Co., please share this archive with them. See Contact to reach the site author.

Important Attribution Note

The accounts below are public reviews, public complaints, or first-person statements. They are presented as source material, not as independent findings by this site. Some of the strongest statements are summarized rather than repeated in full; screenshots and source links are provided where available so readers can evaluate the original context.

Zach — Lawyers.com / Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C. June 02, 2025 · 1 star · Debtor and Creditor

Summary of public review: Zach's Lawyers.com review describes Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum as a debt-collection firm and alleges that the firm pursues people who were deceitfully entered into contracts. The review also states that Zach had spoken with other individuals who were served in similar circumstances. This is a third-party public review, not a finding by this site.

Screenshot of Zach's Lawyers.com review for Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., June 02 2025, 1 star, Debtor and Creditor

Screenshot of Zach's review as it appears on Lawyers.com. Click to open full size.

Oleh Balaban (Oleh B.) — Yelp / Commercial Fire & Security (Freeport) May 21, 2025 · 1 star · Lindenhurst, NY

Summary of public review: Oleh Balaban states that after taking over a restaurant space with an existing alarm system, he contacted Commercial Fire & Security for monitoring and later disputed being bound to a 120-month agreement. He alleges that the contract concerned monitoring rather than new equipment, that service issues followed, and that collection efforts continued after service ended. The original review contains stronger language and is preserved in the linked source/exhibits.

Screenshot of Oleh B.'s Yelp review for Commercial Fire & Security, May 21 2025, 1 star — Lindenhurst, NY

Screenshot of Oleh B.'s review as it appears on Yelp. Click to open full size.

Oleh Balaban — Google Reviews / Commercial Fire & Security (Freeport) c. 2024–2025 · 1 star

Summary of public review: The Google/Birdeye version of Oleh Balaban's review raises substantially the same contract, service, equipment, and collection allegations as his Yelp review. It also includes allegations about positive reviews. The original review text is preserved in the linked source/exhibits.

Screenshot of Oleh Balaban's Google review for Commercial Fire & Security, 1 star — posted approximately 1 year before capture

Screenshot of Oleh Balaban's review as it appears on Google. Click to open full size.

Company Response on Google (verbatim)

"I strongly recommend that the next time you default on your contract and not pay your bills you expect to be sued. The lawsuit we are bringing against you to recover more than $16,000 in bad debt should not come as a surprise to you or anyone else."

Maggie M. — Yelp / New York Merchants Protective Company August 15, 2022

Summary of public review: Maggie M.'s Yelp review alleges a dispute over a 10-year agreement, cancellation terms, billing after the business no longer occupied the property, and later contract language. The original review should be consulted at the source for exact wording.

Screenshot of Maggie M.'s Yelp review for New York Merchants Protective Company, August 15 2022, 1 star — Midtown East, New York, NY

Screenshot of Maggie M.'s review as it appears on Yelp. Click to open full size.

Corey F. — Yelp / New York Merchants Protective Company May 14, 2019 · 1 star · Syosset, NY · First to Review

"Be very wary of using this company. Completely unprofessional and non-trustworthy in my experience."

Screenshot of Corey F.'s Yelp review for New York Merchants Protective Company, May 14 2019, 1 star — Syosset, NY

Screenshot of Corey F.'s review as it appears on Yelp. Click to open full size.

Yelp "Not Recommended" Reviews — New York Merchants Protective Company

The following account appears on Yelp's hidden "not recommended" page for New York Merchants Protective Company (Woodside listing). Yelp excludes these reviews from the business's public star rating. This site summarizes allegations and links to the source page. Yelp also lists additional reviews on the same page as removed for Terms of Service violations. Source: yelp.com/not_recommended_reviews/new-york-merchants-protective-company-woodside

Steve — Yelp (not recommended) / New York Merchants Protective Company March 14, 2026 · 1 star · Los Angeles, CA

Summary of public review: Steve's Yelp "not recommended" review states he was a long-term customer and alleges that a representative named Michael Gordon included a 10-year contract extension in paperwork presented during a repair visit when Steve believed he was only signing a repair order. He alleges recurring equipment failures and that exiting the agreement cost him approximately $10,000. The original review uses stronger language and should be consulted at the source for exact wording.

Screenshot of Steve's Yelp not-recommended review for New York Merchants Protective Company, March 14 2026, 1 star — Los Angeles, CA

Screenshot of Steve's review as it appears on Yelp's "not currently recommended" page for New York Merchants Protective Company. Click to open full size.

Emmet Steave — Google Reviews / Commercial Fire & Security c. 2024–2025 · 1 star · posted ~11 months before screenshot

"A fraudulent security company is deceiving people into signing misleading long-term contracts—sometimes up to 10 years—under false pretenses. Victims report being tricked into sharing personal information, then sued for $10K–$30K through aggressive legal tactics. Many feel helpless as the company targets those too busy or unaware to fight back. These practices have caused severe financial and emotional distress, even blocking some from buying or selling property. It's time for victims to unite, expose the scam, and consider collective legal action. A shared platform could help raise awareness and fight back against this ongoing fraud.

And whenever someone tries to share their bad experience by leaving a review, they immediately label it as FICTITIOUS and write don't believe them. But everyone knows that it's always people who have actually had a bad experience who leave such reviews..."

Third-party review text quoted verbatim from Google's expanded display. The Birdeye mirror truncates this review with a “read more” link; the screenshot below shows the full text.

Screenshot of Emmet Steave's Google review for Commercial Fire & Security, 1 star — full expanded text including FICTITIOUS paragraph, 11 months before capture

Screenshot of Emmet Steave’s review on Google with the full expanded text (both paragraphs visible; ends with “read less”). The Birdeye mirror shows only a truncated version with “read more.” Click to open full size.

Diana Sorkin — Google Reviews / Commercial Fire & Security c. 2023 · 1 star

"Obnoxious people. Harass their clients. Forge documents and threaten their customers. Never do business with them!!!"

Company Response on Google (verbatim)

"I see that you are not happy that we are keeping to the letter of the contract you signed for the services that we provide. We do business according to the contract you signed and now you're looking to break before the term is over."

Stephen P. — Better Business Bureau / New York Merchants Protective Co. February 27, 2026 · 1 star

Summary of public review: Stephen P.'s BBB review alleges years of problematic service with New York Merchants Protective Co. He states that when he sought another provider after a final repair visit, a company representative allegedly snuck in a 10-year contract extension in the repair authorization paperwork he signed. He alleges it cost him $10,000 in court to exit the agreement. The BBB screenshot blurs certain names. The original review should be consulted at the source for exact wording.

Screenshot of Stephen P.'s BBB customer review for New York Merchants Protective Co., February 27 2026, 1 star

Screenshot of Stephen P.'s review as it appears on the BBB profile for New York Merchants Protective Co. Click to open full size.

Stephen P. — Better Business Bureau / United States Merchants Protective Co., Inc. February 28, 2026 · 1 star

Summary of public review: Stephen P.'s BBB review states he had been a customer for over a decade. He alleges that while a company representative was addressing continually failing alarm issues, the representative “snuck in” a 10-year contract extension along with the repair order for him to sign. In his own words: “Trusting him, I foolishly signed as I was answering phones and attending to employees needs.” He alleges that after switching providers, it cost him approximately $10,000 to legally exit the agreement. He also alleges that after posting a negative review, the representative threatened further legal action. The BBB screenshot blurs certain names; the original review should be consulted at the source for exact wording.

Screenshot of Stephen P.'s BBB customer review for United States Merchants Protective Co., Inc., February 28 2026, 1 star

Screenshot of Stephen P.'s review as it appears on the BBB profile for United States Merchants Protective Co., Inc. Click to open full size.

George Ness — Google Reviews / Nationwide Digital Monitoring Co. c. 2019 (posted ~7 years before screenshot) · 1 star

"This company engages in deceptive practices they attempted to sell my information to an affiliated company without my consent. Avoid using them for your monitoring services"

Screenshot of George Ness's Google review for Nationwide Digital Monitoring Co., 1 star — Freeport, NY

Screenshot of George Ness's review as it appears on Google for Nationwide Digital Monitoring Co., listed at 75 W Merrick Rd, Freeport, NY 11520 — the same address documented for NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp. and related entities in The Corporate Web. Click to open full size.

Barbara Daledda — Google Reviews (via Birdeye) / Commercial Fire & Security c. June 2026 (posted ~2 weeks before screenshot)

"Horrible people. When my Dad passed they expect contract to be paid out when canceling service. I get its business but he was 93 when owner 'sold' it to my Dad. Also when we put the new owners in touch with him he was not very nice either. They declined his services. Bad karma coming your way!"

Screenshot of Barbara Daledda's Google review for Commercial Fire & Security, 1 star — posted approximately 2 weeks before capture

Screenshot of Barbara Daledda's review as it appears on Google. Click to open full size.

Adam H. — Yelp / Commercial Fire & Security November 24, 2024 · 1 star · Merrick, NY

"I have had a terrible experience with this company. The woman who handles the account, Mirium, is rude and obnoxious. There are hidden fees, if you need help after paying monthly for years and set up fees. Expect big bills and to be spoken to disrespectfully by this unpleasant woman and for her to be spiteful. They, probably her, actually charged my credit card without my permission for what I thought would be a routine check at the house. There are many options for alarm systems. I would look elsewhere, especially because of Mirium and her obnoxious attitude."

Screenshot of Adam H.'s Yelp review for Commercial Fire & Security, November 24 2024, 1 star — Merrick, NY

Screenshot of Adam H.'s review as it appears on Yelp. Click to open full size.

Yelp "Not Recommended" Reviews — Commercial Fire & Security

The following accounts appear on Yelp's hidden "not recommended" page for Commercial Fire & Security. Yelp's algorithm excludes these reviews from the business's public star rating. Because some reviews use unusually strong language, this site summarizes the allegations and links to the source page rather than repeating every accusation in full. An additional two reviews on the same page are listed by Yelp as removed for Terms of Service violations. Source: yelp.com/not_recommended_reviews/commercial-fire-and-security-freeport-3

John M. — Yelp (not recommended) / Commercial Fire & Security March 28, 2023 · 1 star · Forest Hills, New York, NY

Summary of public review: John M.'s Yelp "not recommended" review strongly criticizes Commercial Fire & Security and Wayne Wahrsager, alleging service and contract-enforcement problems. The original review uses stronger language and should be consulted at the source for exact wording.

Screenshot of John M.'s Yelp not-recommended review for Commercial Fire & Security, March 28 2023, 1 star — Forest Hills, New York, NY

Screenshot of John M.'s review as it appears on Yelp's "not currently recommended" page. Click to open full size.

K C. — Yelp (not recommended) / Commercial Fire & Security October 2, 2020 · 1 star · East Bronx, NY

Summary of public review: K C.'s Yelp "not recommended" review alleges poor customer service, concerns involving older customers, contract issues, and referral to lawyers after cancellation disputes. The original review uses stronger language and should be consulted at the source for exact wording.

Screenshot of K C.'s Yelp not-recommended review for Commercial Fire & Security, October 2 2020, 1 star — East Bronx, NY

Screenshot of K C.'s review as it appears on Yelp's "not currently recommended" page. Click to open full size.

B B. — Yelp (not recommended) / Commercial Fire & Security June 11, 2025 · 1 star · San Francisco, CA

Summary of public review: B B.'s Yelp "not recommended" review alleges long-term contract disputes, legal pressure, settlement demands, and calls for collective action by people with similar experiences. The original review uses stronger language and should be consulted at the source for exact wording.

Screenshot of B B.'s Yelp not-recommended review for Commercial Fire & Security, June 11 2025, 1 star — San Francisco, CA

Screenshot of B B.'s review as it appears on Yelp's "not currently recommended" page. Click to open full size.

Mike C. — Yelp (not recommended) / Commercial Fire & Security June 16, 2025

Summary of public review: Mike C.'s Yelp "not recommended" review alleges that after buying a home with existing equipment, he was denied access unless he purchased a service contract. The original review uses stronger language and should be consulted at the source for exact wording.

Screenshot of Mike C.'s Yelp not-recommended review for Commercial Fire & Security, June 16 2025, 1 star — JFK Airport, Queens, NY

Screenshot of Mike C.'s review as it appears on Yelp's "not currently recommended" page. Click to open full size.


Evidence Documents

The following document images are provided as exhibits. Click any image to open it full-size in a new tab.

Recorded Call: Customer Inquiry and Alleged Threat

Serge Kannon states that this recording captures a phone call he placed to Wayne Wahrsager to ask about Commercial Fire & Security / NYMP-related business practices. During the call, the speaker identified by Kannon as Wayne Wahrsager makes the threatening statement quoted in Serge's first-person account. The full recording is provided as source material.

Source file: Audio from Serge Kannon, approximately 80 seconds. The original file was preserved as AMR audio and converted to MP3 only for browser playback.

Download browser-playable MP3  |  Download original AMR copy

Transcript status: A verified transcript has not yet been added. This audio is presented as source material; readers should listen to the complete recording rather than rely on a paraphrase. Any future transcript should mark uncertain words as [inaudible] or [unclear].

Recorded Call: Conversation with Kenneth Kirschenbaum

Serge Kannon states that this recording captures a phone call with Kenneth Kirschenbaum concerning the NYMP / Time Zone litigation and related collection activity. Kannon characterizes Kirschenbaum's tone during the call as smug about the conduct at issue. The full recording is provided as source material so readers can evaluate the words, tone, and context for themselves.

Source file: Kenneth_call.amr, approximately 7 minutes. The original file was preserved as AMR audio and converted to MP3 only for browser playback.

Download browser-playable MP3  |  Download original AMR copy

Transcript status: A verified transcript has not yet been added. This audio is presented as source material; readers should listen to the complete recording rather than rely on a paraphrase. Any future transcript should mark uncertain words as [inaudible] or [unclear].

Alarm Case File Package: Contracts, Receivership, Account Transfers, and Customer Lawsuits

These are the source filings and exhibits referenced in the opening section. They include bank litigation, receiver litigation, competitor litigation, customer-defendant filings, signature exhibits, and dismissal records. Pleadings contain allegations by the parties who filed them; allegations should be read as allegations unless a separate court finding is identified.

Source note: This package is included so journalists, attorneys, affected customers, and readers can inspect the records directly. The archive's summaries are not a substitute for reading the filings.
Exhibit A: Yelp review from Oleh B. (Oleh Balaban) — Commercial Fire & Security, 1 star

Exhibit A: Yelp review from Oleh B. (Oleh Balaban), 1 star — Commercial Fire & Security. Reviewer alleges a dispute over a 120-month monitoring contract; he states the owner verbally confirmed it was monitoring-only, and he alleges no installation was authorized or received. Source: m.yelp.com.

Exhibit B: Yelp review from Maggie M. — New York Merchants Protective Company, 1 star, August 15, 2022

Exhibit B: Yelp review from Maggie M. (Midtown East, New York, NY), 1 star, August 15, 2022 — New York Merchants Protective Company. Reviewer alleges a dispute over a 10-year agreement, cancellation terms, and later contract language. Source: yelp.com.

Exhibit C: Yelp listing for New York Merchants Protective Company — 1.0 stars, 2 reviews, unclaimed, as of June 2026

Exhibit C: Yelp listing for New York Merchants Protective Company as it appeared when the screenshot was captured — 1.0 stars, 2 reviews, unclaimed. Address listed: 30-30 60th St Fl 2, Woodside, NY 11377. Phone: (888) 696-7911. This screenshot is preserved as a baseline. Any significant increase in review count or star rating after this documentation should be examined for authenticity, as the company has a documented history of using affiliated parties to post positive reviews.

Exhibit D: Yelp 'not recommended' reviews for Commercial Fire & Security — page 1 of 2 (screenshots)

Exhibit D: Yelp's "not currently recommended" reviews for Commercial Fire & Security (yelp.com/not_recommended_reviews/commercial-fire-and-security-freeport-3) — screenshot 1 of 2. These 4 reviews are hidden from the main listing and excluded from the star rating. All are 1 star. Visible in this screenshot: Mike C. (6/16/2025), B.B. (6/11/2025), and John M. (3/28/2023). K.C.'s review (10/2/2020) appears in the continuation screenshot — Exhibit E.

Exhibit E: Yelp 'not recommended' reviews for Commercial Fire & Security — page 2 showing removed reviews

Exhibit E: Continuation of Yelp's "not recommended" page — includes K.C.'s review (10/2/2020) and a section marked "2 Reviews Removed for Violating our Terms of Service" (Michelle S., 11/14/2025; Mike D., 2/2/2019). The nature of those removals is unknown, but their existence is documented here.

Exhibit F: Birdeye.com — Commercial Fire & Security Google reviews showing Barbara Daledda, Emmet Steave, and Oleh Balaban reviews. Business address confirmed as 75 W Merrick Rd, Freeport, NY 11520.

Exhibit F: Birdeye.com mirror of Google reviews for Commercial Fire & Security (reviews.birdeye.com/commercial-fire-security-inc-166575774518240). Screenshot captured June 2026. The page confirms the business address as 75 W Merrick Rd, Freeport, NY 11520. Reviews visible: Barbara Daledda (1 star, 2 weeks before screenshot) — alleges company demanded contract payout after her 93-year-old father passed away; Emmet Steave (1 star, ~11 months before screenshot) — alleges the company deceives customers into "misleading long-term contracts — sometimes up to 10 years," then pursues lawsuits for $10K–$30K; alleges company labels critical reviews as FICTITIOUS; Oleh Balaban (1 star, ~1 year before screenshot) — alleges he was signed into a 120-month contract for monitoring-only and is being pursued for a $20,000 settlement for equipment never installed on his premises. See Exhibit G for the continuation showing Oleh Balaban's full review text.

Exhibit G: Birdeye.com — continuation of Commercial Fire & Security Google reviews showing full Oleh Balaban review text and beginning of Jenn's review

Exhibit G: Continuation of the Birdeye.com Google review page for Commercial Fire & Security (same page as Exhibit F). Business address again confirmed as 75 W Merrick Rd, Freeport, NY 11520. Full text of Oleh Balaban's review now visible. Key additional allegations beyond what appears in Exhibit F: (1) calls for service were ignored; (2) "I was yelled at and cursed at by the owner on the phone"; (3) the company ultimately terminated his service; (4) he states: "The positive reviews here are from the owners and the litigation firm who is collecting on the debt for all the deceived clients." The review concludes: "You're not just signing up for monitoring — you may be signing away your financial safety for 10 years without knowing it. Please read the complaints from others on BBB for this company." Also visible: beginning of Jenn's Google review (1 star, partially visible at bottom of screenshot).

Exhibit H: Yelp mobile — Commercial Fire & Security (Freeport). Full text of Oleh B. review and beginning of Adam H. review.

Exhibit H: Yelp mobile (m.yelp.com/biz/commercial-fire-and-security-freeport-3). Screenshot captured June 2026. Shows full text of Oleh B. (1 star, ~1 year before screenshot). Note: the Yelp version's final sentence reads "The positive reviews on Google are from the owners and the litigation firm who is collecting on debt from all the deceived customers" — a slightly different phrasing than the Google/Birdeye version in Exhibits F–G, confirming this review was posted independently on both platforms. Oleh's Yelp review received: Helpful 1, Thanks 2, Love this 1. Also visible: the first line of Adam H.'s review (1 star, 2 years before screenshot).

Exhibit I: Yelp mobile — Commercial Fire & Security. Full text of Adam H. review and business info footer confirming 75 W Merrick Rd, Freeport NY 11520.

Exhibit I: Continuation of Yelp mobile page (same source as Exhibit H). Full text of Adam H. (1 star, 2 years before screenshot) now visible: alleges a woman named "Mirium" who handles accounts is "rude and obnoxious," alleges hidden fees, alleges unauthorized credit card charge for a routine house check, and states the company charged his card "without my permission." The Yelp business info footer at the bottom of this screenshot independently confirms: 75 W Merrick Rd, Freeport, NY 11520; phone (855) 237-3300; website https://www.commercialfireandsecurity.com.

Exhibit J: Google AI Overview for search united states merchants protective company reviews

Exhibit J: Google search results page showing an AI Overview for the query "united states merchants protective company reviews" (screenshot captured June 2026). The AI Overview summarizes third-party review sources (including Yahoo Local and others) and states that reviews for United States Merchants Protective Company are “decidedly mixed,” with customer complaints described as focusing on long-term contract terms and service when equipment requires troubleshooting or maintenance. It cites allegations that some commercial customers reported 10-year agreements and verbally misrepresented cancellation policies, and that long-term clients reported frustration with maintenance response for recurring system failures. This is a machine-generated summary of public review material, not a court finding or an independent finding by this site.

Exhibit K: Google review by George Ness — Nationwide Digital Monitoring Co., 1 star, Freeport NY

Exhibit K: Google review by George Ness (1 star, posted ~7 years before screenshot capture in June 2026) for Nationwide Digital Monitoring Co. Google lists the business at 75 W Merrick Rd, Freeport, NY 11520 — the same address documented for NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp. (nationwidedigital.com). Reviewer states: “This company engages in deceptive practices they attempted to sell my information to an affiliated company without my consent. Avoid using them for your monitoring services” — alleging deceptive practices and transfer of customer information to an affiliated company without consent. The listing showed 4.3 stars from 6 reviews at the time of capture.

Exhibit L: WebCivil Local screenshots captured June 21, 2026 from an attorney/firm search for Kirschenbaum representing plaintiffs in 2026. The screenshots show a result set of 268 cases and preserve pages 5 through 11, where numerous rows list Slomin's Inc. as plaintiff and Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C. or Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. as first plaintiff firm. The site author reports that the WebCivil review reflected 151 Slomin's Inc. plaintiff-side lawsuits in just the first half of 2026 alone. Source: NYS Unified Court System WebCivil Local. This exhibit is included as an investigative lead about other high-volume plaintiff-side litigation involving Kirschenbaum-represented clients; each case should be verified directly against court records.


Court Findings Against Commercial Fire & Security

The strongest adjudicated finding in this record is not drawn from customer reviews or public complaints — it is drawn from a federal court judgment. In General Security Services Corp. v. Commercial Fire & Security, Inc., a federal court found Commercial Fire & Security liable for:

Named defendants held liable: Commercial Fire & Security, Inc.; Wayne Wahrsager; Steven Moran. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment in 2024.

Case opinions and docket links: External Records.

Question Raised by the Adjudicated Record

What exactly happened in the federal case, and how should readers understand the court's Lanham Act and tortious interference findings when evaluating the broader network of related companies, people, contracts, customer accounts, and business practices documented in this archive?


Questions for Journalists, Attorneys, and the Public

This archive is intended to help journalists, attorneys, affected customers, and members of the public ask sharper questions. The records collected here raise questions about contract formation, customer awareness, high-volume litigation, corporate continuity, law-firm involvement, current customer files, and the treatment of customers who disputed long-term alarm agreements. The questions below are offered as a roadmap for reporting, legal review, and public scrutiny, not as findings of fact.

1. Contract Formation and Customer Understanding

  • How was each customer first approached?
  • What did the customer believe they were signing?
  • Was the customer given a complete copy of the contract at the time of signature?
  • Did New York Merchants Protective Co., Commercial Fire & Security, United States Merchants Protective, or related entities use long-term contracts with automatic renewals, early-termination penalties, equipment leases, or acceleration clauses that customers say they did not fully understand?
  • Were 5-to-10-year terms clearly disclosed before signature?
  • How do the companies respond to allegations that sales representatives, technicians, or account representatives minimized, obscured, or failed to explain key contract terms?
  • Were signatures obtained during repairs, service visits, inspections, or equipment troubleshooting?
  • Are there cases where customers allege pages were added, substituted, or not shown?
  • Did the company retain original signed contracts?
  • Do the contracts contain handwriting, initials, timestamps, witness names, or metadata that can be tested?

2. Current Customer Awareness and Contract Files

  • How many current customers know they are under a long-term contract, including the full term, renewal provisions, cancellation rules, and financial penalties?
  • How many current customers do not know whether they are under a long-term contract?
  • Do United States Merchants Protective Co. and Commercial Fire & Security have a contract in their files for every customer they currently service or bill?
  • How many accounts do the companies currently collect service fees from, and how many signed contracts can they produce for those accounts?
  • How many current customers have been told, in writing, what contract the company says governs their account?
  • What happens when a current customer asks for a copy of the contract, service file, work orders, or cancellation terms?

3. Sales and Service Practices

  • Who trained salespeople, technicians, or account representatives?
  • Were employees instructed to obtain signatures in a particular way?
  • Were customers told they were signing work orders, service authorizations, monitoring agreements, renewals, or long-term contracts?
  • Were elderly customers, small businesses, or busy shop owners disproportionately affected?
  • Were customers told cancellation was possible when the written contract said otherwise?
  • Did service failures, false-alarm issues, or unresolved technical problems lead customers to try to cancel?

4. Litigation Volume and Customer Impact

  • Why do the reviewed court records show approximately 2,000 documented case rows in which related alarm entities appeared as plaintiffs?
  • Are there other companies represented by Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum that participate in high-volume plaintiff-side litigation, and what does that broader pattern reveal? For example, WebCivil Local screenshots preserved as Exhibit L show a 2026 Kirschenbaum plaintiff-side search in which the site author reports 151 Slomin's Inc. plaintiff-side lawsuits in just the first half of 2026 alone.
  • How many serial plaintiffs has Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum represented over the course of the firm's history?
  • Is scrutiny of the contracts used by Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum's other high-volume plaintiff-side clients warranted?
  • What did those serial plaintiffs' contracts look like, and did they share drafting patterns, renewal terms, acceleration clauses, default provisions, or collection-fee language?
  • How did those serial plaintiffs acquire the contracts they later enforced: direct sales, acquisitions, account purchases, assignments, renewals, equipment leases, or transfers from related entities?
  • What percentage of those cases involved customers or former customers who say they tried to cancel, disputed service, or say they never knowingly agreed to a long-term commitment?
  • Why were court filings and collection proceedings used so often?
  • Who decided which customers to sue?
  • Were lawsuits filed as a last resort, or did litigation function as part of the business model?
  • Were customers sued for the full remaining value of long-term agreements?
  • Were individual people sued where a business, store, or corporate entity was the actual customer?
  • Were defendants properly served?
  • How often did defendants default?
  • How often were cases settled under pressure?
  • Did these companies sue everyone who tried to cancel service, or only certain categories of disputed accounts?
  • How many customers were able to cancel a contract without a lawsuit?
  • How many customers faced financial hardship, collection pressure, loss of access to funds, reputational harm, or severe stress from the lawsuits and collection efforts?
  • Were easy cancellations, settlements, or service resolutions offered before lawsuits were filed, or was the practical choice often to pay, settle, or be sued?
  • Did the lawsuits depend on customers being too busy, confused, intimidated, or under-resourced to fight?

5. Law Firm Role and Enterprise Questions

  • Did Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum merely collect debts, or did it help design the contract and litigation system?
  • Who drafted the contracts?
  • Who advised on enforcement strategy?
  • What was the relationship between the alarm companies and Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C.?
  • Did the law firm have any ownership interest, referral arrangement, shared business interest, or operational control connected to the alarm companies or their contracts?
  • Would any such relationship create a conflict where the same business network sells or enforces the contract and then sues on it?
  • Did the firm know customers were disputing whether they knowingly signed long-term agreements?
  • Did repeated customer defenses put the firm on notice of a pattern?
  • Did the firm sue individuals without adequate factual basis?
  • Did the firm review disputed signatures or contract-formation claims before filing suit?
  • Did the firm benefit from high-volume litigation, settlements, defaults, or judgments?

6. Corporate Continuity and NYMP Receivership

  • Are NY Merchants Protective Co., Commercial Fire & Security, United States Merchants Protective, NationWide Central Station, Home Alarm Systems Corp., and related entities operationally connected?
  • Do they share owners, managers, addresses, phone numbers, employees, lawyers, customers, forms, or billing systems?
  • Were assets, accounts, phone numbers, trade names, or contracts moved between entities?
  • What happened during NY Merchants Protective's receivership, the Bank of America loan-default litigation, and Wayne Wahrsager's reported removal as president?
  • How were customer accounts, assets, records, phone numbers, and contracts handled after NYMP's collapse or transition?
  • Did new entities continue similar customer practices after older entities faced litigation, receivership, or reputational problems?
  • Were corporate names changed or multiplied in ways that make accountability harder?

7. Knowledge, Notice, and Response

  • When did Wayne Wahrsager, Kenneth Kirschenbaum, Eric Wahrsager, Aaron Wahrsager, Jennifer Kirschenbaum, Stacy Spector, or others first learn customers were making similar complaints?
  • Did internal emails, letters, reviews, BBB complaints, lawsuits, or defenses alert them to a repeated pattern?
  • Did they change practices after receiving complaints?
  • Did they continue using the same contracts or enforcement methods after complaints?
  • Were complaints dismissed as “fictitious” without further review?
  • Were negative reviewers threatened, sued, or pressured?

8. First-Person Accounts and Audio

  • How do Wayne Wahrsager, Kenneth Kirschenbaum, and the companies respond to Serge Kannon's first-person account?
  • Were other customers or defendants contacted in similarly aggressive ways during disputes or collection efforts?
  • What records, call logs, letters, emails, voicemails, or witness accounts can confirm or contradict the first-person accounts collected here?

9. Defendant Identification and Case Outcomes

  • How many defendants were businesses versus individuals?
  • How many cases involved small businesses?
  • How many defendants had no attorney?
  • How many cases resulted in default judgments?
  • How many defendants paid settlements to avoid litigation?
  • How many customers say they never received or understood the contract?
  • How many were sued after trying to cancel because of service problems?
  • How many defendants later filed bankruptcy, closed businesses, lost livelihood, or suffered lasting emotional harm?

10. Money Trail

  • How much money was demanded in lawsuits?
  • How much was collected through settlements, judgments, or payment plans?
  • Who received the money?
  • Were legal fees, interest, acceleration clauses, or collection costs added?
  • Did litigation revenue become part of the business model, or was it the model from the start?
  • Did any related entity purchase, inherit, or enforce accounts created by another related entity?

11. Licensing, Public Records, and Current Practices

  • What do public licensing records show for the current companies, owners, managers, installers, and monitoring entities?
  • Are all current installers, alarm companies, and monitoring-related entities properly licensed where required?
  • Have customers been given accurate statements about licensing, equipment ownership, monitoring arrangements, cancellation rights, or contract terms?
  • If the companies say their practices have changed, what specific reforms were made to contracts, disclosures, service cancellation, customer-file access, and collections?
  • Can the companies provide data showing cancellation approval rates, contract-copy response rates, and proof that current customers clearly understand the terms?
  • Should journalists and attorneys examine whether these questions reflect a company-specific pattern or a broader alarm-contract problem affecting the industry?

12. Records Journalists and Attorneys May Request

  • Original contracts and renewals
  • Work orders and service tickets
  • Sales scripts and training materials
  • Customer files
  • Billing records
  • Current account lists matched against signed contract files
  • Lawsuit demand letters
  • Settlement agreements
  • Internal emails
  • Call recordings and voicemails
  • BBB, Yelp, Google, Birdeye complaints
  • Court pleadings and affidavits
  • Process-server records
  • Corporate ownership records
  • Bank records showing collections
  • Communications between the companies and law firm

The central question is whether these records describe ordinary contract disputes, or whether they reflect a coordinated pattern of obtaining, enforcing, and monetizing disputed long-term alarm agreements through litigation pressure. Related questions are whether the pattern was incidental, whether it became more aggressive over time, or whether high-volume litigation was part of the business model from the start. This site does not ask readers to assume the answer. It asks journalists, attorneys, affected customers, and members of the public to examine the records.


Public Records and Review Evidence

BBB listings, Birdeye/Google review mirrors, third-party review summaries, and screenshot exhibits are documented in Evidence Documents and Public Accounts. Corporate filings, receivership context, and litigation volume appear in The Corporate Web. Adjudicated findings appear in Court Findings.


The Corporate Web

The following entities are documented through New York Department of State filings, Virginia foreign corporation records, OpenCorporates, Florida licensing records, and company contact pages. The primary operating address is 75 W. Merrick Rd., Freeport, NY. Note: NYMP's Yelp listing shows a Woodside, NY address (30-30 60th St Fl 2) — that appears to have been a separate public-facing or registered address; the Freeport address was the documented operating location.

Entity Incorporated Key Officers Notes
NMP Holdings Corp. (f/k/a NY Merchants Protective Co.) Jan 12, 1989 Wayne Wahrsager (CEO); Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. (registered process agent; 200 Garden City Plaza, Garden City, NY) 1,857 lawsuits filed. 75 W. Merrick Rd., Freeport NY. Primary operating entity. Security Systems News reported that a court-appointed receiver terminated Wayne Wahrsager from NYMP in 2011 during Bank of America litigation.
United States Merchants Protective Co., Inc.
usmerchantsprotective.com
Dec 15, 2010 Eric Wahrsager (CEO) Formed the same month NYMP court filings ceased. Same Freeport address. Wayne Wahrsager's son. Named in Friedman v. Wahrsager docket materials. NY State License #12000292700; NJ License #34BF00055100. Phone: (855) 637-5400. USMP's own website claims "100+ Years in the Industry" despite the December 2010 incorporation date; this likely traces through an acquisition: weprotect.com (United Security Systems, est. 1945) displays a banner stating "United Security Systems has joined United States Merchants Protective Co., Inc." and shares the same (855) 637-5400 phone number. Clients listed on USMP's website include Burlington, HomeGoods, Marshalls, TJ Maxx, Planet Fitness, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Amazon Fresh, Tesla, Best Buy, Westfield Malls, and others.
Commercial Fire & Security, Inc. Apr 19, 2011 Kenneth Weinberger (President, per BBB); Wayne Wahrsager (General Manager, per BBB) Incorporated after NYMP court filings ceased. Same Freeport address. BBB lists start date April 19, 2011; not BBB accredited. See Court Findings for adjudicated liability. The company's own website (commercialfireandsecurity.com) claims "116+ years experience" — inconsistent with the April 2011 incorporation date on file with the NY Department of State.
NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp. Jun 30, 2011 Aaron Wahrsager (President); Eric Wahrsager (VP) Virginia foreign corporation. NationWide's own website (nationwidedigital.com) and contact page list P.O. Box 7297 / 75 W. Merrick Road, Freeport NY 11520 as its address. Florida licensing records list Aaron L. Wahrsager d/b/a NationWide Central Station Monitoring Corp. at 75 W. Merrick Road. The site states the company has served dealers since 1972 and identifies itself as "a family-owned business."
Home Alarm Systems Corp. Contact page lists 75 W. Merrick Road, Freeport NY — the same address as the other entities in this network. Source: homealarmsystemscorp.com/contact-and-resources

Receivership Context

In 2011, Bank of America sued New York Merchants Protective Co. and related entities over more than $19 million in alleged loan defaults and overdrafts. The federal court appointed Ronald J. Friedman as receiver for NYMP-related entities.

The receiver later filed Friedman v. Wahrsager, alleging that Wayne, Eric, and Aaron Wahrsager and related entities transferred or interfered with NYMP assets, customer accounts, records, and operations before or during the receivership. In January 2012, the court allowed most of those claims to proceed past a motion to dismiss. That ruling was not a final factual finding.

Related public court records show that the court authorized the sale of NYMP's accounts and proprietary information, and later court records state that Bank of America obtained a judgment exceeding $24 million against Wayne Wahrsager on his personal guarantee.

This context is included to explain the documented transition from NYMP to later related entities and asset ownership. It should not be read as a final adjudication of every allegation in the receiver's lawsuit.

Sources

Successor Entity Litigation Record

A search of the New York State Unified Court System for the successor entities confirms the pattern. All 62 successor-entity cases are prosecuted by Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. — the same firm that filed all 1,857 NYMP cases — in the same courts, under the same case type.

1,857
NY Merchants Protective Co. cases
All prosecuted by Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum
28
United States Merchants Protective cases
2012–2026, Nassau County (25 of 28)
34
Commercial Fire & Security cases
2017–2026, Nassau County
0
NationWide Central Station cases
No filings found under any spelling variant
1,919
Total WebCivil rows documented
All NYMP-related entities combined

The court records also show repeated appearances in certain courts and parts. This archive does not criticize any judge or court. Judges decide the cases placed before them under the law and the record presented. The issue raised here is whether high-volume repeat-plaintiff litigation can make broader patterns difficult for any single defendant, or even any single case, to reveal.

The full dataset — 1,919 rows covering all NYMP-related entities, with charts by filing year, court, and company group — is available for download:

↓ Download Case Data (.xlsx) — 1,919 rows

Individual Defendant Pattern

A heuristic scan of the WebCivil dataset identified rows where the defendant name appears to be a natural person rather than a business entity. These figures are an investigative lead, not a legal conclusion — some sole proprietors may appear as individuals, and each case should be manually verified in WebCivil party records.

890
Rows where defendant appears to be an individual
Across all 1,919 rows (heuristic)
873
NYMP cases with apparent individual defendants
11
Commercial Fire & Security cases with apparent individual defendants
6
United States Merchants Protective cases with apparent individual defendants

Lead list download: potential_individual_defendant_cases.csv


Named Parties in Documented Litigation

The following individuals and businesses appear as named parties in court records filed by New York Merchants Protective Co., United States Merchants Protective Co., and Commercial Fire & Security, Inc. in New York State courts. All records are public. Parties are listed as they appear in official court filings. This index exists so that anyone searching for their own name in connection with these companies can find this documentation.

Scope of Identified Defendants

The current dataset includes 1,857 New York Merchants Protective rows, 28 United States Merchants Protective rows, and 34 Commercial Fire & Security rows. The 1,806 defendant count reflects unique names visible in the WebCivil search-result defendant field, not a final legal count of every affected person or business. The list may not be exhaustive: individual case pages may identify additional parties, names may appear with spelling variations or DBAs, and additional cases may exist under search terms not yet captured.

If You Recognize a Name Here — Please Tell Them

If you see the name of someone you know in the lists below, please share this page with them.

Defendants Named in Successor Entity Cases (United States Merchants Protective & Commercial Fire & Security — 62 Cases, 96 Named Defendants, 2012–2026)

Cases frequently name multiple defendants — a business entity and its owner or officer in the same filing. One case number can therefore produce more than one listed name.

Defendants Named in NY Merchants Protective Co. Cases (1,857 Cases)

Methodology Note

This list is compiled from the NY Unified Court System WebCivil records. The source workbook is NYMP_Related_WebCivil_Cases_with_Charts.xlsx. Note: WebCivil displays plaintiff names in truncated form — for example, "NEW YORK MERCHANTS PROTECTIV" — which researchers should account for when filtering or searching the raw data.

Defense Counsel Appearing in Case Records

Attorneys and firms who represented defendants in these proceedings, as listed in court records.

How This Site Distinguishes Evidence Types

This site distinguishes between court findings, public records, and allegations made in public reviews or first-person accounts. The distinction is applied throughout all sections.

  • Court findings are identified as court findings — specifically, findings made by a judge or jury in a published opinion or order. They are cited with case name, court, and year.
  • Public records are identified as public records — corporate filings, BBB listings, licensing records, WebCivil court case data, and similar official or government-accessible sources.
  • Review allegations are identified as allegations — statements made by members of the public in reviews, complaints, or first-person accounts. They are presented as "reviewers allege," "the pattern alleged by customers," or "public records show."
  • First-person accounts are identified as the account of the named individual who provided them.

This site does not use phrases like "proved fraud" unless discussing a specific, published court finding that uses comparable language. Where the underlying evidence is a public review or personal account, this site uses cautious language and identifies the source.


Where to Report Similar Experiences

If you believe you were similarly affected by disputed alarm contracts, cancellation demands, lawsuits, collection activity, licensing issues, attorney conduct, threats, or related business practices, you may consider contacting the agencies below. This archive cannot file complaints for you and does not provide legal advice. Preserve contracts, work orders, invoices, court papers, emails, letters, voicemails, screenshots, bank records, and any written cancellation requests before submitting a complaint.

Before You Report

Consider writing a short timeline first: who contacted you, what you believed you were signing, what contract or invoice was later produced, when you tried to cancel, whether you were sued, the court index number if any, and what money or property was demanded or collected. Attach records rather than relying only on memory.

Complaint Letter Templates

These templates are designed for affected customers, former customers, business owners, and defendants who want to submit a clear complaint with documents. Replace bracketed text with your own facts. Do not exaggerate. Attach contracts, court papers, bank records, letters, emails, call logs, screenshots, and a short timeline. Confirm current mailing addresses or online submission instructions before sending.

1. U.S. Trustee / DOJ Public Integrity

Use when the complaint concerns Kenneth Kirschenbaum's public-trust role, trustee fitness, conflicts, private practice, or conduct that may warrant DOJ review.

FORMAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

TO:
Office of the United States Trustee
United States Department of Justice
Eastern District of New York - Brooklyn
Alexander Hamilton Custom House
One Bowling Green, Suite 510
New York, NY 10004-1408

CC:
Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
1301 New York Avenue, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

DATE: [DATE]

RE: COMPLAINT REGARDING KENNETH KIRSCHENBAUM, ESQ., KIRSCHENBAUM & KIRSCHENBAUM P.C., AND CONDUCT IMPLICATING FEDERAL PUBLIC TRUST

To the Office of the United States Trustee:

This letter serves as a formal complaint and request for investigation into the professional conduct, private business practices, and litigation activities of Kenneth Kirschenbaum, Esq. and Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C.

Mr. Kirschenbaum is publicly associated with federal bankruptcy trustee work in the Eastern District of New York. That role carries extraordinary fiduciary responsibility, public trust, and an obligation to maintain confidence in the federal bankruptcy system. Conduct that suggests predatory contracting, deceptive litigation practices, conflicts of interest, or abuse of legal process should be reviewed with particular seriousness when connected to a person holding or associated with such a position.

I. BASIS FOR CONCERN

Public court records, customer accounts, and investigative documentation collected at www.wayne-wahrsager-kenneth-kirschenbaum.com raise serious questions about whether Mr. Kirschenbaum and his firm helped design, sell, enforce, or profit from a high-volume litigation model involving alarm companies and disputed long-term customer contracts.

Public records indicate that alarm companies including New York Merchants Protective Co., United States Merchants Protective Co., and Commercial Fire & Security, Inc. filed nearly 2,000 lawsuits against customers, former customers, small businesses, business owners, and individuals. Those cases appear to have been handled by Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. in the records reviewed.

II. SPECIFIC ISSUES WARRANTING REVIEW

The concerns include:

1. High-volume litigation against customers and small businesses.
2. Allegations that customers signed service sheets, work orders, or routine paperwork later treated as long-term contracts.
3. Lawsuits and collection activity based on disputed contract formation.
4. Post-judgment tactics including bank restraints, depositions, and contempt motions.
5. Questions concerning original contracts, document custody, assignment rights, and file integrity.
6. The firm's public role in selling alarm-industry contracts while also litigating to enforce such contracts.
7. Federal court findings in General Security Services Corp. v. Commercial Fire & Security, Inc., involving Lanham Act violations and tortious interference by Commercial Fire & Security, Wayne Wahrsager, and Steven Moran, affirmed by the Second Circuit in 2024.

III. REQUESTED ACTION

I respectfully request that the Office of the United States Trustee review:

1. Whether Kenneth Kirschenbaum's private practice and high-volume alarm-contract litigation model are compatible with the ethical expectations of a federal bankruptcy trustee or trustee-associated attorney.
2. Whether any conflicts of interest, misuse of status, or public-integrity concerns exist.
3. Whether referral to DOJ Public Integrity, the U.S. Attorney's Office, attorney discipline authorities, or other agencies is warranted.
4. Whether the attached records raise concerns about honesty, judgment, fiduciary fitness, or abuse of legal process.

I am not asking your office to accept conclusions without review. I am asking that the attached records be examined because the integrity of the bankruptcy system depends on the integrity of those entrusted to administer it.

Sincerely,

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

Attachments:
[LIST EXHIBITS]

Where to Send

U.S. Trustee Program, Region 2 / EDNY Brooklyn:
Office of the United States Trustee, Eastern District of New York - Brooklyn, Alexander Hamilton Custom House, One Bowling Green, Suite 510, New York, NY 10004-1408
Email: USTP.Region02@usdoj.gov

DOJ Public Integrity Section:
Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1301 New York Avenue, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005
Email: Criminal.Division@usdoj.gov

2. FBI / U.S. Attorney EDNY

Use when the facts suggest a broader pattern, interstate conduct, use of banking/mail/wire systems, threats, or coordinated litigation/collection activity.

FORMAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR FEDERAL INVESTIGATION

TO:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
New York Field Office
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10278-0004

CC:
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of New York
Criminal Division
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201

DATE: [DATE]

RE: REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE PATTERN OF ALARM CONTRACT FRAUD, COURT-BASED COLLECTION, AND RELATED CONDUCT

To Whom It May Concern:

I respectfully submit this complaint requesting federal review of a documented pattern involving alarm companies, disputed long-term contracts, high-volume lawsuits, and aggressive collection activity.

The companies involved include New York Merchants Protective Co., United States Merchants Protective Co., Commercial Fire & Security, Inc., and related entities publicly connected to Wayne Wahrsager, Eric Wahrsager, Aaron Wahrsager, and Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C.

Public records reviewed at www.wayne-wahrsager-kenneth-kirschenbaum.com show nearly 2,000 lawsuits filed against customers, former customers, small businesses, business owners, and individuals. Many cases appear to involve disputed alarm-service contracts, cancellation demands, default judgments, and post-judgment collection.

The issues warranting federal review include:

1. Whether customers were induced to sign documents under misleading circumstances.
2. Whether routine service documents were later represented as long-term contracts.
3. Whether lawsuits were used systematically to collect on disputed contracts.
4. Whether mail, wire communications, banking systems, credit systems, or interstate commerce were used in furtherance of the pattern.
5. Whether court filings, affidavits, or collection processes relied on documents whose authenticity, custody, or assignment history should be reviewed.
6. Whether the pattern affected enough people to warrant federal investigation.

This complaint is not submitted as a private contract dispute. It is submitted because the volume, repetition, similarity of allegations, and use of the court system suggest a broader pattern that may warrant federal scrutiny.

I ask that the FBI and/or U.S. Attorney's Office review the attached evidence and determine whether investigation, subpoena review, victim outreach, or referral is appropriate.

Respectfully,

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

Attachments:
[LIST EXHIBITS]

Where to Send

FBI New York Field Office:
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor, New York, NY 10278-0004
Electronic tip portal: tips.fbi.gov

U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York:
United States Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York, 271 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201, Attn: Intake
Citizen inquiry form: Citizen Inquiry / Complaint Form

3. New York Department of State

Use for licensing, alarm installer, contract, disclosure, recordkeeping, service, and regulated-business issues.

FORMAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR LICENSING INVESTIGATION

TO:
New York State Department of State
Division of Licensing Services
Complaint Review Office
P.O. Box 22001
Albany, NY 12201-2001

DATE: [DATE]

RE: COMPLAINT REGARDING ALARM COMPANY LICENSING, CONTRACTING, AND CUSTOMER LITIGATION PRACTICES

To the Division of Licensing Services:

I submit this complaint requesting investigation into the licensing, contracting, sales, installation, monitoring, and recordkeeping practices of [COMPANY NAME] and related alarm/security/fire monitoring entities.

The companies of concern include New York Merchants Protective Co., United States Merchants Protective Co., Commercial Fire & Security, Inc., Nationwide Digital Monitoring, NationWide Central Station Monitoring, and related entities.

Public records and customer accounts indicate a recurring pattern in which customers report signing what they believed were service tickets, work orders, or routine forms, only later to be told they were bound to long-term alarm-monitoring contracts. Many customers were then sued or threatened with collection when they attempted to cancel.

I request that the Department of State investigate:

1. Whether all relevant companies, installers, salespersons, and qualifying officers were properly licensed.
2. Whether contract formation complied with New York law and licensing requirements.
3. Whether customers received required disclosures.
4. Whether service sheets, work orders, or installation documents were improperly used as contracts.
5. Whether records were properly preserved.
6. Whether licensing discipline, referral, or broader investigation is warranted.

My individual facts are:

[INSERT PERSONAL TIMELINE]

I attach supporting documentation and request formal review.

Sincerely,

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

Attachments:
[LIST EXHIBITS]

Where to Send

NYS Department of State, Division of Licensing Services:
Complaint Review Office, P.O. Box 22001, Albany, NY 12201-2001

Express / physical address:
Division of Licensing Services, 1 Commerce Plaza, 99 Washington Avenue, 6th Floor, Albany, NY 12231

Email for completed complaint forms: Complaints@dos.ny.gov

4. New York Attorney General

Use for consumer fraud, deceptive business practices, small-business customer harm, recurring contract disputes, and public-interest enforcement.

FORMAL CONSUMER FRAUD COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR PATTERN INVESTIGATION

TO:
New York State Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau
Nassau Regional Office
200 Old Country Road, Suite 240
Mineola, NY 11501

DATE: [DATE]

RE: REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO ALARM CONTRACT PRACTICES AND HIGH-VOLUME CUSTOMER LITIGATION

To the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau:

I respectfully request investigation into what appears to be a recurring pattern of alarm-contract disputes, customer lawsuits, and collection activity involving New York Merchants Protective Co., United States Merchants Protective Co., Commercial Fire & Security, Inc., related entities, and Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C.

Public court records indicate nearly 2,000 lawsuits filed against customers, former customers, small businesses, business owners, and individuals. Customer accounts describe allegedly misleading contract formation, long-term monitoring agreements, cancellation disputes, lawsuits, default judgments, and collection pressure.

This matter appears to raise consumer-protection concerns because the same pattern appears repeatedly across many customers and many years.

I request that the Attorney General review:

1. Whether customers were misled about what they were signing.
2. Whether long-term contract terms were adequately disclosed.
3. Whether lawsuits were used to enforce contracts obtained under disputed circumstances.
4. Whether elderly, small-business, immigrant, or legally unsophisticated customers were disproportionately harmed.
5. Whether the business model relied on customers not understanding contract terms.
6. Whether restitution, injunctive relief, subpoenas, or enforcement action are appropriate.

My individual facts are:

[INSERT PERSONAL TIMELINE]

Respectfully,

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

Attachments:
[LIST EXHIBITS]

Where to Send

NY Attorney General, Nassau Regional Office:
200 Old Country Road, Suite 240, Mineola, NY 11501

Statewide mailing address:
Office of the New York State Attorney General, The Capitol, Albany, NY 12224-0341

Electronic submission: Consumer fraud complaint form. The OAG does not list a direct consumer-complaint email for this bureau on its complaint page.

5. Attorney Grievance Committee

Use for attorney conduct, litigation tactics, collection behavior, alleged abuse of process, document reliability, and professional-responsibility issues.

FORMAL ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT

TO:
Attorney Grievance Committee
Tenth Judicial District
150 Motor Parkway, Suite 306
Hauppauge, NY 11788

DATE: [DATE]

RE: COMPLAINT REGARDING KENNETH KIRSCHENBAUM, ESQ. AND KIRSCHENBAUM & KIRSCHENBAUM P.C.

To the Attorney Grievance Committee:

I submit this complaint requesting review of the conduct of Kenneth Kirschenbaum, Esq. and Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum P.C. in connection with alarm-company contract litigation and collection activity.

The concern is not merely that the firm represented clients in civil litigation. The concern is that public records show a high-volume litigation pattern involving disputed long-term contracts, default judgments, post-judgment collection, bank restraints, and contempt motions against customers and small businesses.

I request review of whether the firm's conduct complied with professional obligations concerning honesty, fairness, candor, conflicts, document reliability, litigation abuse, and collection practices.

Specific concerns include:

1. Pursuing lawsuits based on contracts customers claim they did not knowingly sign.
2. Enforcing disputed long-term contracts through default judgments and collection pressure.
3. Moving for contempt or aggressive post-judgment relief in cases involving disputed contract formation.
4. Representing alarm companies while the firm publicly sells alarm-industry contract forms.
5. Possible failure to adequately scrutinize original contracts, assignments, document custody, or authentication.

My individual matter is:

[INSERT CASE NAME, COURT, INDEX NUMBER, FACTS]

I request that the Committee investigate and determine whether discipline, referral, or other action is appropriate.

Sincerely,

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

Attachments:
[LIST EXHIBITS]

Where to Send

Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District:
150 Motor Parkway, Suite 306, Hauppauge, NY 11788
Email: ad2-grv10@nycourts.gov

Use this committee for attorneys whose office is in Nassau or Suffolk County. If the attorney's office is in another New York county, file with the committee for that county.

6. FTC / ReportFraud.gov

Use for the FTC online form or as text for a federal unfair/deceptive business-practice report.

FORMAL CONSUMER FRAUD REPORT

RE: ALARM CONTRACT PRACTICES, HIGH-VOLUME LITIGATION, AND COLLECTION ACTIVITY

I submit this report concerning alarm companies including New York Merchants Protective Co., United States Merchants Protective Co., Commercial Fire & Security, Inc., and related entities.

Public records indicate nearly 2,000 lawsuits filed against customers and small businesses. Customer accounts describe a recurring pattern in which people believed they were signing service tickets, work orders, or routine alarm paperwork, but were later told they had signed long-term contracts with severe cancellation penalties.

When customers disputed the contracts or attempted to cancel, the companies and/or their counsel allegedly pursued lawsuits, judgments, collection demands, bank restraints, or other pressure.

My individual facts are:

[INSERT TIMELINE]

I request review for deceptive or unfair business practices affecting multiple consumers and small businesses.

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

Attachments / evidence available:
[LIST EXHIBITS]

Where to Send

Federal Trade Commission:
Consumer Response Center, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580

Electronic submission: ReportFraud.ftc.gov. The FTC directs consumer fraud reports to its online form or Consumer Response Center phone line rather than a direct complaint email.

7. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau / Debt Collection

Use when the harm involves debt collection, collection calls, judgment enforcement, bank restraints, credit reporting, or collection pressure.

FORMAL DEBT COLLECTION COMPLAINT

TO:
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
P.O. Box 27170
Washington, DC 20038

DATE: [DATE]

RE: DISPUTED ALARM CONTRACT DEBT, COLLECTION ACTIVITY, AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW

To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

I am submitting a debt-collection complaint involving [LAW FIRM / COLLECTION ENTITY / COMPANY].

The debt arose from a disputed alarm-service contract that I do not believe I knowingly agreed to, or that I believe was improperly enforced. The collector, law firm, or company pursued payment through [CALLS / LETTERS / LAWSUIT / JUDGMENT / BANK RESTRAINT / OTHER].

Debt collector or law firm: [NAME]
Original company: [COMPANY]
Amount demanded: [$]
Court/index number: [COURT / INDEX]
Dates of collection activity: [DATES]

What happened:

[FACTUAL SUMMARY]

Why I dispute the debt:

[SUMMARY]

I request review of whether the collection activity complied with applicable debt-collection laws and whether this matter should be referred to another federal or state enforcement authority.

Respectfully,

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

Attachments:
[LIST EXHIBITS]

Where to Send

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:
P.O. Box 27170, Washington, DC 20038

Electronic submission: consumerfinance.gov/complaint

Whistleblower tips and leads: whistleblower@cfpb.gov

8. U.S. Postal Inspection Service

Use when contracts, invoices, court papers, collection letters, notices, or payment demands were sent by mail.

FORMAL MAIL FRAUD COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW

TO:
United States Postal Inspection Service
Criminal Investigations Service Center
Attn: Mail Fraud
433 W. Harrison Street, Room 3255
Chicago, IL 60699-3255

DATE: [DATE]

RE: POSSIBLE MAIL-RELATED FRAUD INVOLVING ALARM CONTRACTS, LAWSUITS, AND COLLECTION DOCUMENTS

To the United States Postal Inspection Service:

I request review of possible mail-related fraud or deceptive practices involving alarm-service contracts, lawsuits, demand letters, invoices, and collection documents.

I received documents by mail connected to a disputed alarm-service contract and/or lawsuit. I believe those documents may be part of a broader pattern involving multiple customers who were sued or pressured based on disputed long-term alarm contracts.

Companies/persons involved:

[LIST]

Documents mailed:

[LIST LETTERS, CONTRACTS, COURT PAPERS, DEMANDS]

My concern is that the mail may have been used to transmit, enforce, or collect on contracts whose formation, authenticity, assignment, or enforceability is disputed.

I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed and referred as appropriate.

Sincerely,

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

Attachments:
[LIST EXHIBITS]

Where to Send

U.S. Postal Inspection Service:
Criminal Investigations Service Center, Attn: Mail Fraud, 433 W. Harrison Street, Room 3255, Chicago, IL 60699-3255

Electronic submission: uspis.gov/report. USPIS lists its report portal and hotline rather than a direct mail-fraud complaint email.

9. Local District Attorney / Financial Crimes Bureau

Use for county-level review where the conduct occurred, where the customer lives, or where the business/lawsuit/collection activity was centered.

FORMAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL CRIMES REVIEW

TO:
Nassau County District Attorney
Criminal Complaints Bureau / Financial Crimes Review
262 Old Country Road
Mineola, NY 11501

DATE: [DATE]

RE: REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO ALARM CONTRACT LITIGATION AND COLLECTION PRACTICES

To the District Attorney:

I respectfully request review of a possible pattern of consumer fraud, business fraud, and court-based collection abuse involving alarm companies and related litigation.

Public records show nearly 2,000 lawsuits filed by alarm companies against customers, former customers, small businesses, business owners, and individuals. The recurring allegation is that customers were misled about what they were signing, later told they were bound to long-term contracts, and then sued or subjected to collection pressure.

My individual facts are:

[INSERT FACTS]

County where conduct occurred:
[COUNTY]

Company involved:
[COMPANY]

Court/index number, if any:
[COURT / INDEX]

Amount demanded or collected:
[$]

I ask your office to determine whether the conduct described is merely civil in nature or whether it warrants investigation as part of a broader fraud or financial-crimes pattern.

Respectfully,

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]

Attachments:
[LIST EXHIBITS]

Where to Send

Nassau County District Attorney:
262 Old Country Road, Mineola, NY 11501
Email for completed complaint forms: info@nassauda.org

Queens County District Attorney, Financial Frauds Bureau:
125-01 Queens Boulevard, Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Email: Frauds@queensda.org

Use the county where the conduct occurred, where you live, or where the business, lawsuit, or collection activity was centered.


Contact / Media Inquiries

Journalists, attorneys, and others seeking to verify documentation or request additional information may contact the site author directly.

Serge Kannon — Primary Witness & Site Author

Phone: 718-510-3692

Email: myiqis172@gmail.com