Darren Zuckerman’s Custom Coverings Lawsuit Against Home Depot

Darren Zuckerman, who owns Plainview-based Custom Coverings Corp., filed a lawsuit in March 2026 against The Home Depot and the corporate owners of Sunburst Shutters, alleging the retailer diverted customers who should have been sent to him under an exclusive New York sales contract. The complaint, filed in Nassau County Supreme Court, seeks more than $5 million in damages and names Home Depot, Sunburst Shutters Nevada Inc., Springs Window Fashions LLC, and Clearlake Capital Group L.P. as defendants.¹

The Exclusive Territory Behind the Claim

In January 2023, Zuckerman signed an agreement with Sunburst Shutters, a Nevada-based manufacturer, giving Custom Coverings the sole right to sell Sunburst products across 15 New York counties, including all of Long Island. The deal also entitled his company to customer leads generated by Sunburst’s national retail partners, including every Home Depot store in that territory.¹

Five months later, in June 2023, Springs Window Fashions, backed by Clearlake Capital Group, acquired Sunburst Shutters.² That change in ownership is why Zuckerman’s complaint reaches beyond Sunburst to its parent and its private equity owner.

What the Complaint Alleges

The verified complaint was filed on March 20, 2026, and rests on two theories.³

The first is tortious interference with the exclusive sales contract. Zuckerman says Home Depot displayed Sunburst product samples in its stores but sent interested buyers to other local businesses instead of Custom Coverings, despite knowing about his exclusive arrangement. He says the practice cost him profits, business opportunities, and the value of his territorial rights.¹

“Business was slowing down. I started looking into things and realized another division was opened in my territory,” Zuckerman told Newsday. “It forced me to realize that I was dealing with a big company and they were taking advantage of me.”¹

The second theory targets the manufacturer side. Zuckerman alleges Sunburst, Springs, and Clearlake interfered with his planned sale of 50 percent of Custom Coverings’ stock to a Farmingdale flooring and window installation company. He says he disclosed the pending transaction in good faith, and the defendants responded by suing him in Nevada federal court, which caused the stock deal to collapse.¹

The Nevada Countersuit Filed First

Sunburst got to court first. On February 6, 2026, Sunburst and its parent companies sued Custom Coverings in Nevada federal court, seeking $75,000 in damages and termination of the license agreement. That suit alleges Custom Coverings performed “substantially worse” than other licensees in comparable territories during 2023, 2024, and 2025, and that Zuckerman’s company failed to follow up on customer leads sent through Home Depot and Lowe’s stores.¹

Jesse Cotter of the Manhasset-based Cotter Law Group, who represents Zuckerman, disputed the performance allegations, calling his client’s conversion rates “pretty standard.” On the stock-sale question, Cotter said the Sunburst contract did not require prior consent for a stock sale, and that the Nevada lawsuit followed Zuckerman’s voluntary disclosure of the pending transaction.¹

Why the Interference Claim Is a Hard One to Win

Tortious interference is a demanding claim in New York. A plaintiff has to show a valid contract, the defendant’s knowledge of it, an intentional act that caused a breach, and resulting damages. Anthony Sabino, a St. John’s University law professor, told Newsday the test is “rigorous” and “multi-component” and called the claim “an uphill battle.”¹

When a defendant does deliberately interfere with an enforceable contract, New York courts allow the plaintiff to recover damages even if the underlying conduct would otherwise be lawful. The bar rises when the claim involves a prospective business relationship rather than an existing contract; there, the plaintiff must show the defendant acted solely to cause harm or engaged in independently wrongful conduct.³ That higher standard is likely to shape the stock-sale portion of the case, which concerned a transaction that had not yet closed.

Where the Case Stands

The New York case, index number 606106-2026, was listed as pending in Nassau County Supreme Court in late March 2026 under the practice area of economic torts.³ A Home Depot spokesperson declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. Representatives for the other defendants did not respond to Newsday’s requests for comment, and Custom Coverings had not yet filed a formal response in the Nevada case.¹

1
Newsday. Suit Window Coverings Home Depot
2
Clearlake Capital. Springs Window Fashions Acquires Sunburst Shutters Window Fashions
3
Trellis.law. Darren Zuckerman et al v Home Depot Inc et al