Latest news with #Cuozzo
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Major New York City Steakhouse Will Close After 19 Years
One of New York City's most popular steakhouses will shut down at the end of the summer after nearly two decades in business. Porter House Bar and Grill, located on the fourth floor of the former Time Warner Center and featuring views of Central Park, will close after Labor Day. Steve Cuozzo of the New York Post first reported the news on Wednesday. Porter House chef/partner Michael Lomonaco and his fellow owners confirmed the closure in a statement. 'We have made the difficult decision to forever close our doors after Labor Day. We thank you for making us part of your New York story. Please join us to celebrate one final summer together." said Porter House's ownership team. Porter House was the vision of Lomonaco, the former chef of the Windows on the World restaurant located at the top of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Opened in 2006, it was named one of America's Best New Restaurants by Esquire in October of that year. Advertising "prime steaks, exceptional seafood, pastas, roasted chicken and duck and other ingredient-driven signature dishes," Porter House remains one of the city's best steakhouses. Tasting Table, Modern Luxury and Time Out all ranked it among their top choices recently. However, it was not without its issues, Cuozzo said. "Insiders suggested Porter House fell victim to the exit of high-spending Time Warner executives from the building to Hudson Yards, and to competition from a surge in new steakhouse openings — including at Bourbon Steak nearby," Cuozzo wrote. Porter House has roughly three months left before it shutters. In the meantime, diners can check out the menu, as well as view its hours of operation and make reservations, on the restaurant's official website. Major New York City Steakhouse Will Close After 19 Years first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 5, 2025
Business Insider
22-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Business Insider
5 style mistakes a menswear designer wishes you would stop making
Christopher Cuozzo is a custom suit designer based in Boston whose clients include Karoline Leavitt. He shared his workwear and formalwear pet peeves, including improper buttoning of suits and tuxedos. Cuozzo also said that wearing sneakers with suits is "extremely overdone." What counts as a fashion faux pas can be subjective, but there are some style choices that suit designer Christopher Cuozzo just can't stand. Cuozzo, a bespoke menswear and womenswear designer whose clients include White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, told Business Insider that fashion is an art form like any other. Inevitably, people express different tastes and preferences when it comes to their personal style. "Everybody's going to have their opinion on how something should fit or how something should look, and that's the beauty of it," he said. "Nobody's necessarily right, and nobody's necessarily wrong." That being said, Cuozzo does have certain pet peeves as a craftsman who cares deeply about how a suit is worn. Here are five style mistakes he wishes people would stop making. Mistake #1: Buttoning the bottom of a 2-button jacket If a jacket has two buttons, Cuozzo says only the top one should ever be buttoned. The bottom one should never be closed in order to maintain the proper fit and style etiquette. "One of my pet peeves on a two-button jacket is seeing the bottom button buttoned," he told BI. "It's a massive faux pas. I can't stand that." Mistake #2: Wearing an unbuttoned tuxedo Tuxedos are about as formal as it gets. Wearing one unbuttoned sends mixed messages, especially at black-tie occasions such as weddings. Cuozzo urges grooms and others wearing tuxedos at weddings to walk down the aisle with the jacket buttoned to avoid looking too casual. "It's the most formal day of your life. Please, button your tuxedo jacket," he said. Mistake #3: Wearing a suit with an untucked shirt Similar to an unbuttoned tuxedo, an untucked shirt undermines the formality of a suit, Cuozzo says. "Your dress shirt is untucked, but you're wearing a suit — that's a complete oxymoron," he said. "That would drive me insane." Mistake #4: Leaving stitching in the vents of a suit Off-the-rack jackets typically come with the vents, or slits, stitched closed on the back or sides. Those vents are supposed to be opened after purchasing, but not everyone realizes that. When Cuozzo makes a custom suit, he removes the stitches for the client to help them avoid this style misstep. "We actually don't give the suit to a client unless it's open," he said. "If you go and you buy a suit off the rack, you'll see people wearing it with the vent still closed, and it just drives me bananas." Mistake #5: Wearing sneakers with suits Cuozzo told BI that pairing sneakers — especially high-top shoes like Jordans — with suits is "extremely overdone." "The pant doesn't even fit the sneaker. The tongue is in the way. That is one of my biggest pet peeves," Cuozzo said of the suits-with-sneakers look. "And then, you'll see guys on the red carpet wearing sneakers with a tuxedo, and I'm just like, 'This has gone way too far.'" Cuozzo says that there are rare cases where he'd style a suit this way, such as a more casual suit with a drawstring closure worn with a white T-shirt and clean white sneakers. Otherwise, he says formalwear requires formal footwear to match. "There's just these colliding philosophies where you're wearing a shirt and tie, which tells me you're all business, then I look down at your feet, and you're wearing Jordans. Like, what's going on here?" he said. "Are we going to a meeting, or are we going to a basketball game? You can't do both."
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Oregon bill to impose penalties on utilities delaying wildfire lawsuits advances
Ash and debris along Oregon Route 22 from property destroyed by the 2020 Labor Day weekend wildfires. (Photo courtesy of the Oregon Department of Transportation/Flickr) Fred Cuozzo barely made it out of the South Obenchain Fire that burned through his home, barn, pumphouse and garage in Eagle Point, north of Medford, on Sept. 8, 2020. Three years later, PacifiCorp — owner of Oregon private utility Pacific Power — was found by a jury to have been reckless and negligent in causing that fire and three others. In January 2024, a jury ordered the utility company to pay millions in damages to Cuozzo and nine other survivors, among the first group in an ongoing class action lawsuit. Cuozzo still has not seen that settlement money because PacifiCorp is appealing the jury's verdict. In three months, Cuozzo turns 80. He fears he might not in his lifetime see that money — money he needs to rebuild. 'I've been waiting almost five years since my home, contents and four other structures burned up,' he said. 'I think they're just waiting, trying to wait people out, and they can get tired of waiting or die, right?' The Oregon Legislature is considering a bill that would do something about that, and it's moving through the session with bipartisan support and little fanfare. Senate Bill 926, sponsored by state Sen. David Brock Smith, R-Port Orford, and co-sponsored by Democratic state Sens. Jeff Golden of Ashland and James Manning of Eugene, would impose some consequences on PacifiCorp, and the state's two other investor-owned utilities, for delaying settlements and prolonging litigation if they are found to have recklessly or negligently caused a wildfire. On April 8, the Senate Judiciary Committee's four Democrats voted to pass it out of the committee and onto the Senate floor, recommending they also vote yes. The committee's two Republicans opposed the bill. The larger Senate vote has not yet been scheduled. Golden said he only recently learned about the bill and signed on as a sponsor. 'I am interested in faster settlements. I'm not interested in rate increases or favorable treatment (for utilities) until people who have been waiting for a remedy get it,' he said. Unlike other bills this session related to private utilities and wildfire risk that have been more controversial — including bills to shield utilities from some financial liabilities, and one bill that would have prohibited utilities from raising rates if they had ongoing wildfire suits — Senate Bill 926 appears to be meeting little friction. Only one person spoke at its first public hearing in March: a father of three in Albany who supports the bill and expressed frustration over his rising electricity costs. Brock Smith, the bill's chief sponsor, did not give testimony during the bill's first hearing or in the run-up to the judiciary committee's vote. He also didn't respond to calls, emails or texts about the bill. Utility companies oppose the bill. Portland General Electric lobbyist Greg Alderson called it 'problematically broad' in a letter submitted to the committee two days after the hearing. PacifiCorp spokesman Simon Gutierrez, said in an email to the Capital Chronicle on Tuesday that the company strongly opposes the bill, though it has not yet submitted any formal testimony against it. The bill was amended after public comment closed, unfairly and fundamentally altering the original bill without the opportunity to weigh in on the changes, both utilities contend. Senate Bill 926 would prohibit Oregon's private investor-owned utilities from recovering wildfire lawsuit costs from ratepayers — including fines, fees and settlements — if the company was found by a court or jury to have acted recklessly or negligently in causing the fire. It would also prohibit companies from raising rates to pay for repairing or replacing wildfire-damaged infrastructure if the company is found by court or jury to have been at fault for the fire. Electric utilities indebted by a wildfire judgment would not be allowed to send dividends, income, interest or profits to corporate owners and shareholders and would pay 9% interest on any damages awarded to wildfire victims starting from the date of the fire, rather than the date the damages are awarded. The bill would apply retroactively to all powerline-ignited wildfires since Jan. 1, 2020. For a company like PacifiCorp, that could mean millions in interest on cases that have been awaiting trial for years, and limits to the utilities' now annual requests to raise rates. 'It is astounding that Senate leadership in the Oregon legislature is seeking to insert themselves into ongoing litigation involving PacifiCorp by retroactively imposing costs in the millions under a scheme that would apply to no other business in the state,' Gutierrez said. He added that in light of a recent report from the Oregon Department of Forestry that concluded PacifiCorp did not start fires it was previously found to have started in the Santiam Canyon, the bill should be reconsidered. That state report refutes statements from first responders from the U.S. Forest Service and months of trial testimony about the origins of the fires, and is unlikely to be admissible in PacifiCorp's appeal because the company in 2023 moved to exclude all government reports at trial. This article was first published by the Oregon Capital Chronicle, part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Shumway for questions: info@
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposal to impose penalties on private utilities delaying wildfire lawsuits quietly moves forward
Ash and debris along Oregon Route 22 from property destroyed by the 2020 Labor Day weekend wildfires. (Photo courtesy of the Oregon Department of Transportation/Flickr) Fred Cuozzo barely made it out of the South Obenchain Fire that burned through his home, barn, pumphouse and garage in Eagle Point, north of Medford, on Sept. 8, 2020. Three years later, PacifiCorp — owner of Oregon private utility Pacific Power — was found by a jury to have been reckless and negligent in causing that fire and three others. In January 2024, a jury ordered the utility company to pay millions in damages to Cuozzo and nine other survivors, among the first group in an ongoing class action lawsuit. Cuozzo still has not seen that settlement money because PacifiCorp is appealing the jury's verdict. In three months, Cuozzo turns 80. He fears he might not in his lifetime see that money — money he needs to rebuild. 'I've been waiting almost five years since my home, contents and four other structures burned up,' he said. 'I think they're just waiting, trying to wait people out, and they can get tired of waiting or die, right?' The Oregon Legislature is considering a bill that would do something about that, and it's moving through the session with bipartisan support and little fanfare. Senate Bill 926, sponsored by state Sen. David Brock Smith, R-Port Orford, and co-sponsored by Democratic state Sens. Jeff Golden of Ashland and James Manning of Eugene, would impose some consequences on PacifiCorp, and the state's two other investor-owned utilities, for delaying settlements and prolonging litigation if they are found to have recklessly or negligently caused a wildfire. On April 8, the Senate Judiciary Committee's four Democrats voted to pass it out of the committee and onto the Senate floor, recommending they also vote yes. The committee's two Republicans opposed the bill. The larger Senate vote has not yet been scheduled. Golden said he only recently learned about the bill and signed on as a sponsor. 'I am interested in faster settlements. I'm not interested in rate increases or favorable treatment (for utilities) until people who have been waiting for a remedy get it,' he said. Unlike other bills this session related to private utilities and wildfire risk that have been more controversial — including bills to shield utilities from some financial liabilities, and one bill that would have prohibited utilities from raising rates if they had ongoing wildfire suits — Senate Bill 926 appears to be meeting little friction. Only one person spoke at its first public hearing in March: a father of three in Albany who supports the bill and expressed frustration over his rising electricity costs. Brock Smith, the bill's chief sponsor, did not give testimony during the bill's first hearing or in the run-up to the judiciary committee's vote. He also didn't respond to calls, emails or texts about the bill. Utility companies oppose the bill. Portland General Electric lobbyist Greg Alderson called it 'problematically broad' in a letter submitted to the committee two days after the hearing. PacifiCorp spokesman Simon Gutierrez, said in an email to the Capital Chronicle on Tuesday that the company strongly opposes the bill, though it has not yet submitted any formal testimony against it. Senate Bill 926 would prohibit Oregon's private investor-owned utilities from recovering wildfire lawsuit costs from ratepayers — including fines, fees and settlements — if the company was found by a court or jury to have acted recklessly or negligently in causing the fire. It would also prohibit companies from raising rates to pay for repairing or replacing wildfire-damaged infrastructure if the company is found by court or jury to have been at fault for the fire. Electric utilities indebted by a wildfire judgment would not be allowed to send dividends, income, interest or profits to corporate owners and shareholders and would pay 9% interest on any damages awarded to wildfire victims starting from the date of the fire, rather than the date the damages are awarded. The bill would apply retroactively to all powerline-ignited wildfires since Jan. 1, 2020. For a company like PacifiCorp, that could mean millions in interest on cases that have been awaiting trial for years, and limits to the utilities' now annual requests to raise rates. 'It is astounding that Senate leadership in the Oregon legislature is seeking to insert themselves into ongoing litigation involving PacifiCorp by retroactively imposing costs in the millions under a scheme that would apply to no other business in the state,' Gutierrez said. He added that in light of a recent report from the Oregon Department of Forestry that concluded PacifiCorp did not start fires it was previously found to have started in the Santiam Canyon, the bill should be reconsidered. That state report refutes statements from first responders from the U.S. Forest Service and months of trial testimony about the origins of the fires, and is unlikely to be admissible in PacifiCorp's appeal because the company in 2023 moved to exclude all government reports at trial. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
