A lawsuit filed against Albert Trummer, co-owner of D.O.M., a high-end cocktail lounge in Gramercy Park, alleges that Trummer has been allowing live sex shows and brazen drug use at the bar, which he has even set on fire. Trummer’s partner, Arndt Oesterle, claims that Trummer’s behavior is “ruinous” and has been captured on hours of shocking video footage. Trummer’s son, Jakob, who is a bartender at D.O.M., has also been recorded participating in the use of illegal drugs, including what appears to be cocaine, during business hours.
In addition to the alleged drug use and sex shows at the bar, Trummer has also been accused of violating city fire codes by overseeing his son as he spread flammable liquor across the bar and set it on fire. Trummer has a history of pyrotechnics, having been arrested in 2010 for a similar stunt at a different club. Oesterle claims to have invested over $1.6 million in D.O.M. while Trummer has not contributed financially and has been using the business as his “personal piggy bank,” taking money to pay for his apartment and trips to Europe.
Trummer has denied the allegations made by Oesterle and has claimed that Oesterle is not his partner but simply an investor who is trying to take over the business. Trummer insists that there are no live sex shows at D.O.M. and that the accusations are without merit. Oesterle has accused Trummer of not paying rent, issuing dozens of bad checks, and not providing access to the bar’s financial records. Despite the legal battle between the two owners, Trummer continues to deny the allegations and defend his behavior at the bar.
The ongoing lawsuit between Trummer and Oesterle has brought to light the alleged illicit activities taking place at D.O.M., including drug use and live sex shows. Trummer’s son, Jakob, has been implicated in the drug use, as seen in video footage captured by the bar’s closed-circuit cameras. Trummer’s history of pyrotechnic stunts has also raised concerns about the safety of the bar and its patrons. Oesterle’s accusations of financial mismanagement and misuse of funds by Trummer have further added to the legal dispute and the uncertain future of D.O.M.
Despite Trummer’s denial of the allegations and his insistence that Oesterle is not a partner in the business, the lawsuit continues to expose the controversies surrounding D.O.M. and Trummer’s alleged behavior. The legal battle has highlighted the challenges of co-owning a business and the risks involved in investing in establishments with questionable practices. The outcome of the lawsuit will determine the fate of D.O.M. and shed light on the responsibilities of business partners in maintaining a safe and legal environment for their patrons.
