KINGDESKI'S INC

Absolutely Gorgeous! Completely 100% Satisfied with Mark Kingdeski ~

Mr. Kingdeski (Mark) came out to my mothers house at time of looking over the project for providing an estimate. He was very professional and extremely knowledgeable. He made all kinds of promises and assurances and made my mother feel like he was the one to do the job. When he called to give me the estimate he stated he could begin the actual design of the project once he received a $500 deposit. At that time I discussed with him the need to fully involve my mother in the process and that included going through the detail design with her, showing her what the proposed planting would look like and making adjustments to the final design based on her input. He assured me all this would occur. We gave him the deposit, and mind you no discussion of a contract was made at this time. Two days before the start date I asked him where the final design was. He waffled and said it was at his house and he was working on it. A day before the start day he made a request to rip out all the old landscaping first prior to finalizing the drawing. Needless to say he never produced a design and pushed through what I feel was plants he had on hand at his nursery with no intent on ever having myself or my mother review prior to planting. Every time I confronted him about this he was very unprofessional and his story always changed. This wasnt the only issue. He constantly made verble changes and his statements and changes contradicted what we agreed to the day before or at time of providing the verbal estimate. Going back to the contract. NYS law requires a 3 day cooling down period for contract review. Mark showed up the day they began the work with the contract. I questioned the 3 day review process since the first time I saw the contract was the day he started work. He stated the 3 days was from the time I gave him the deposit not the day of signing the contract......This should have raised a red flag. Now for length of the work day...the first 3 day the crew was there 5 hours each day, the next 2 days an hour and half then a half day and finally another 3 hour day to finish. Needles to say they did not meet the completion date agreed to. Overall Mark is very knowledgeable and a realy nice person. His crew was very professional and took very good care of the property and treated my mother well and with the respect she deserved. Its just unfortunae the issues that came up during this project, as stated above, created a negative impact on the overall experience.

The work was completed on time, and we were pleased with the professionalism of Mr. Kingdeski's work crew and secretary. Unfortunately, we had concerns with some of the work, and services not rendered to terms of the contract; and we were not pleased with the professionalism in which Mr. Kingdeski addressed our concerns. During the project Mr. Kingdeski made several changes, none of which were revised on the contract or landscape draft for us to keep track. We sent Mr. Kingdeski a notarized letter of agreement on June 7, 2012. We requested services and materials not rendered to terms of the contract, a revision of the contract noting a new guarantee period for any replacement of plants and hardscape, and for the landscape draft that cost $500.00 to have drawn up. We requested the draft five times. When Mr. Kingdeski failed to satisfy all of the agreement, we filed a petition in small claims court. On January 24, 2013, the Court ruled in our favor, and awarded us $935.00 that was to be paid by Mr.Kingdeski within two weeks. We were given an additional week to notify the Court of his payment. It is now 25 days, and we have not received payment from Mr. Kingdeski. We never got a revision of the contract, or revision of the draft. These are the services and materials we were awarded based on terms of the contract: Payment for landscape draft that was paid for, and guaranteed to us, based on terms of the contract. Payment for (6) rose plants that never bloomed. Payment for (1) Arborvitae tree that turned entirely brown within a month. Payment for (11) mixed perennial. Contracted for (42) only planted (29). Payment for (2) Rhododendrons, never planted Payment for (1) Potentilla, never planted Payment for services to remove (1) large tree that was never removed. Payment for dying Hostas that require partial to full shade, and were planted where there is only full sun. Payment for Sump Pump drain pipe that was to extend an additional15 ft. Payment for stairs that had safety concerns, e.g., top post was too far from the door, top rail had an end piece that extended beyond the bottom post, treads were all at a downward slant, rails were unparallel, and screwed to the outside posts. (See photo). We also have three small junipers that continued to brown, and shed needles. We later discovered that they were buried 2-inches above ground. (See photo). On February 20, 213, the Court filed a judgment against Mr. Kingdeski for non-payment. On February 26th, we had to file for a property execution at the city Marshall's office to collect payment from Mr. Kingdeski's bank account. We finally received payment on March 16th.