Fraud charge dismissed for Plum contractor accused of not completing project |

Fraud charge dismissed for Plum contractor accused of not completing project

Renatta Signorini

A home improvement fraud charge against a Plum contractor was dismissed Friday by a Westmoreland County judge.

Michael Cerniglia, 55, had been accused by Greensburg police this year of taking a down payment through his business, Michael’s Painting, but failing to start a $1,250 project on Grove Street. Judge Christopher Feliciani ordered that $450 in restitution be released to a woman who reported the alleged situation to police.

Cerniglia’s attorney said in court filings the project could not be completed because of cold weather combined with an urgent family matter. Cerniglia reimbursed the woman $800 after the contract was canceled and offered to deliver the $450 worth of paint he had purchased for the project, according to court filings.

In a related civil matter, Cerniglia was ordered to pay plaintiff Michelle Moreno $2,462, according to court records. Cerniglia’s lawyer said in court papers the matter was more appropriate for civil court rather than criminal charges.

Renatta Signorini is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Renatta at 724-837-5374, rsig[email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.