The Attyx lawsuit is a civil enforcement action filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James on March 17, 2026, accusing the residential solar company Attyx, LLC, its co-founders, and its lending partners of running a fraud scheme that generated an estimated $275 million in New York by luring homeowners with false promises of free roof replacements and government-funded solar, then locking them into loans they never knowingly agreed to.
Who Is Being Sued
The complaint was filed in New York State Supreme Court and names Attyx LLC, its subsidiary Attyx New York LLC, co-CEOs Grant Young and Benson Payne, and lending partners Solar Mosaic LLC and WebBank. Young and Payne are both Utah residents; Young also held the titles of president and chief financial officer. The company was originally formed in August 2019 as SUNco Capital, LLC and changed its name to Attyx in January 2024. It has also done business as SUNco Solar, SUNco Roofing and Solar, Attyx Roofing, Attyx Solar LLC, New York Roofing, and LGCY Power.
Attyx reported installing at least 4,583 solar systems in New York at a typical price of roughly $60,000 per house. The case is being handled by Assistant Attorney General John P. Figura in the Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection.
What Attyx Is Accused of Doing
The core allegation is that Attyx built its business on a bait-and-switch. According to the complaint, salespeople used social media ads and door-to-door pitches promising free roof replacements and HVAC systems, telling homeowners the work would be fully covered by government incentives. The attorney general says the promised tax credits and rebates were either unavailable or would not produce the “no cost” outcome described.
During in-home visits, sales representatives allegedly handed customers tablets and pressured them to tap through documents without reviewing terms, telling them they were authorizing credit checks or eligibility forms when they were in fact signing binding sales and loan agreements. In some cases, the complaint alleges, sales staff simply forged consumers’ electronic signatures. The state quotes Payne himself describing “Loan Surcharges” embedded in consumers’ costs as a “kickback” taken by lenders.
The attorney general also alleges Attyx specifically targeted elderly customers on fixed incomes and residents of lower- and middle-class neighborhoods, leaving them with monthly bills they could not afford for work that did not deliver the promised savings.
How the Lenders Are Involved
Solar Mosaic and WebBank are accused of participating in the scheme by embedding their fees inside the inflated “System Costs” Attyx charged consumers, rather than disclosing them as finance charges. According to the complaint, that arrangement overstated the amounts financed and understated the actual annual percentage rates on the loans, in violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act. Borrowers, the state says, could not discern the true cost of their loans from the paperwork.
What the Attorney General Is Asking For
The state is seeking:
- A permanent injunction barring the defendants from illegal, fraudulent, and deceptive conduct in the solar and home improvement industries in New York.
- Rescission of all sale agreements between consumers and Attyx and all loan agreements between consumers and the lending partners.
- Restitution and damages for defrauded homeowners, estimated as high as $275 million based on Attyx’s New York revenue.
- Disgorgement of profits, full financial accountings, civil penalties, and court costs.
- Removal of installed solar systems at no cost to any consumer who chooses that option.
What Led Up to the Case
State regulators had been raising concerns for years. In June 2021, NYSERDA placed SUNco on probation because its sales agreements failed to include required cost breakdowns between roofing and solar work, violating the NY-Sun Program Manual. When the company did not respond, NYSERDA suspended and then terminated it from the state subsidy program in November 2021. Even after being barred, the company kept using NYSERDA logos in sales agreements, drawing a cease-and-desist letter. NYSERDA received close to 50 customer complaints about the company between 2020 and 2024.
In October 2024, the New York Public Service Commission found that Attyx had provided “false and misleading” information to consumers about solar system values, tax credits, “no-cost” roof replacements, and program participation. A February 2025 Notice of Apparent Violation from the Department of Public Service was addressed directly to Grant Young.
On November 17, 2025, the PSC issued a final order in Case 25-E-0341 revoking Attyx’s eligibility to serve as a distributed energy resource supplier in New York. The Commission found violations of nine sections of the Uniform Business Practices for Distributed Energy Resource Suppliers, including misleading or deceptive conduct, false representations about rates and savings, missing cost disclosures, and failure to notify the Department of the corporate name change. Con Edison was directed to refuse interconnection for any customer not on a list of pending installations Attyx was required to submit.
One of the sharpest allegations in the March 2026 complaint is that Attyx kept soliciting and installing solar systems in New York after the PSC revoked its license, operating under the name “LGCY Power” to work around the ban.
Other Cases and Rulings Against the Company
The attorney general’s lawsuit is not the company’s only legal exposure. Since 2022, more than two dozen New York homeowners have sued Attyx in state courts, at least five additional cases have been filed in federal court, and the attorney general’s office has received more than 200 consumer complaints.
In September 2024, the Legal Aid Society sued on behalf of Claver Campbell, a 75-year-old Queens homeowner who responded to a Facebook ad and was allegedly pressured into a contract. She was promised a new roof and solar installation for $184 per month; the actual loan required roughly $536 per month over 25 years, totaling over $160,000. The suit alleged her electronic signature had been applied to documents she did not recognize and brought claims under the Truth in Lending Act, New York General Business Law, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, including race and age discrimination. Campbell reached an undisclosed settlement by early 2026.
In March 2025, arbitrator Joseph J. Maltese ruled in favor of Leonard and Rhonda Policastri, a Staten Island couple, finding the contract was “knowingly” fraudulent and misleading and that Attyx had engaged in breach of contract, fraudulent business practices, and unjust enrichment. He ordered Attyx to remove the solar system, restore the roof, and pay $26,500 in attorney fees, and rescinded the Solar Mosaic loan.
One federal ruling matters for anyone facing an Attyx contract. In Simmons v. SUNco Capital, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07129, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the Eastern District of New York denied Attyx’s motion to compel arbitration in August 2025. He ruled that if fraud in the execution is proven, “there was no mutual assent between the parties, the contracts are void, and defendants cannot compel arbitration.” That means the arbitration clauses in Attyx’s contracts may not shield the company from consumer claims in court.
A proposed class action filed by Elmer Cruz in April 2026 in the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:26-cv-02494, brings fraud, negligent misrepresentation, Truth in Lending Act, and unjust enrichment claims against Attyx, Young, Payne, Solar Mosaic, WebBank, and Service Finance Company. Cruz alleges he agreed to a $28,520 solar system with a free roof and ended up with roughly $180,000 in debt across two loans.
The Solar Mosaic Bankruptcy Complication
Solar Mosaic, the primary lender named in the attorney general’s suit, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on June 6, 2025, in the Southern District of Texas, Case No. 25-90156. The filing triggered an automatic stay halting existing proceedings against Mosaic. A Joint Plan of Reorganization was confirmed on September 5, 2025, with an effective date of September 22, 2025, and bar dates for filing proofs of claim passed in late 2025.
The bankruptcy has slowed recovery for consumers. Settlement talks stalled in the Campbell case because of it. In the Policastri matter, the Texas bankruptcy court placed a hold on judgments against Mosaic, though plaintiffs’ counsel has been pushing to bring the arbitration award before a Staten Island judge. If you have a Mosaic loan tied to an Attyx installation, the bankruptcy affects when and how you can pursue claims against the lender, even though it does not stop claims against Attyx itself.
Where the Case Stands
As of mid-2026, the attorney general’s lawsuit is active. Hannah Sfameni, a lawyer for Attyx, said in March 2026 that the defense team was reviewing the filings. No preliminary injunctions, defendant responses, or substantive court orders have been publicly reported in the state case. Attyx’s New York license remains revoked under the PSC’s November 2025 order. Its Better Business Bureau profile carries an F rating, with seven unresolved complaints and 26 complaints the business failed to respond to. Gary DeFilippo, the plaintiffs’ attorney in the Policastri arbitration, has said he is representing additional clients from Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx in claims against the company.