A former employee of TAO, a well-known Chelsea restaurant, could be facing criminal charges after the eatery's owners say the former employee dumped feces into their koi fish pond.
The owners filed a complaint with the state Supreme Court on Tuesday and police confirmed the incident was under investigation. Police did not confirm the former employee's name, and Gothamist is withholding the person's identity since the complaint was filed by the company and not the NYPD.
The company said the person was formerly employed as a host for TAO properties at the Moxy in the East Village before they were fired for violating company policy on Dec. 1, 2022, according to the complaint. Their termination set off a pattern of harassment in which they threatened to burn down company-owned venues, assaulted female employees and stalked promoters, the complaint said. This ultimately led to them being banned from all TAO properties on June 29, 2023.
The harassment campaign came to a head on June 2, when the former employee, who was disguised with a wig and glasses, entered TAO Downtown in Chelsea just after midnight. They then threw feces into a koi fish pond inside the restaurant before standing on a table and yelling at diners. TAO owners said the incident cost them more than $3,000 in damages.
In the complaint, the former employee is said to have walked calmly toward the back of the restaurant carrying a large bag before removing a smaller black bag from it and emptying the fecal matter into the koi fish pond. It's unclear if the poo was of the human variety. After about two minutes, the former employee is shown in surveillance footage standing on a table in the middle of the dining room and shouting at diners, according to the complaint.
Neither the former employee nor their lawyer could be reached for comment. TAO management also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The company is seeking punitive damages, a permanent injunction to keep the former employee at least 50 yards away from any TAO property and to stop them from contacting any employees, according to the complaint.
Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the nature of the complaint filed by the restaurant owners. It is a civil complaint.
