FROM NIAGARA ACTION
A New York Supreme Court Judge issued a sweeping decision this morning dismissing a lawsuit brought by 27 restaurants against Buffalo Biodiesel, rejecting what the court characterized as speculative, conclusory, and legally deficient claims. The rebuke lands squarely on the shoulders of plaintiffs’ counsel, Manhattan attorney Michael Collesano.
In a detailed Memorandum Decision, Hon. Michael A. Siragusa, J.S.C., granted Buffalo Biodiesel’s motion to dismiss finding that the action should never have been filed in the first place. The court concluded that the lawsuit was barred because it duplicated more than two dozen already-pending cases, failed to plead basic elements of antitrust and fraud claims, and relied on allegations contradicted by evidence and unsupported by facts.
At issue in the case is Buffalo Biodiesel, a Buffalo-based business operating in the Northeastern U.S. with over 28,000 suppliers who collect used cooking oil, that sued 27 restaurants who breached contracts for the collection of waste vegetable cooking oil purchase agreements in Erie County Supreme Court. All 27 of those restaurants then attempted to bring a separate, omnibus action accusing Buffalo Biodiesel of fraud, monopolistic conduct, and abusive litigation tactics, all under the direction and advice of Collesano. They are now the plaintiffs in this action.
Although the subject for a future story, Collesano found these clients through soliciting them through NYSCEF, which is the New York filing database. This has been the subject of grievances, motion practice, and other court filings.
Collesano and his clients claimed Buffalo Biodiesel filed those related actions “for the primary purpose of enforcing and maintaining its market share,” using what they described as “oppressive litigation against a relatively small damages claim to force settlement and continued business with distant small businesses.”
The court disagreed.
Judge Siragusa wrote, “the record (primarily, Plaintiffs’ own allegations and exhibits) establishes the Related Actions are the quintessential ‘other action[s] pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state …’ (CPLR 3211(a)(5)).”
“As such,” the court ruled, “[] the motion to dismiss shall be granted.”
In other words, Collesano attempted an end run around dozens of existing cases by filing a new lawsuit that duplicated them. The CPLR expressly prohibit that maneuver.
The contract signed by each restaurant, or “Exclusive Waste Vegetable Cooking Oil Purchase & Sale Agreements” as it is referred to by Buffalo Biodiesel, required restaurants to provide all waste vegetable cooking oil exclusively to the company for a 5-year term, automatically renewing unless notice was given to cancel. Buffalo Biodiesel supplied containers, collected the oil, and processed it at a facility in Tonawanda, New York. This was all laid out clearly, in black and white, signed, initialed, and with copies provided to the supplier.
Buffalo Biodiesel alleges that the plaintiffs breached those contracts by supplying oil to competitors or various other forms of breaches. Rather than confront those claims directly, the plaintiffs accused Buffalo Biodiesel of not collecting oil, misrepresentations, and etc..
Judge Siragusa rejected all of plaintiffs’ allegations outright.
The court emphasized that while it must ordinarily accept pleaded facts as true, it is “not required to accept factual allegations, or accord Plaintiffs’ favorable inferences, in those cases where the factual assertions are ‘inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence.’”
Plaintiffs also alleged that Buffalo Biodiesel violated General Business Law § 340 – the Donnelly Act – by restraining trade and monopolizing the used cooking oil market. Judge Siragusa.
“A plaintiff alleging a claim under GBL Section 340 must identify the relevant product market, allege a conspiracy between two or more entities (that are actually competitors), and allege that the economic impact of that conspiracy was to restrain trade in the relevant market,” the court explained.
According to Siragusa, Collesano did none of that.
“Plaintiffs’ bare bones, conclusory allegations,” the decision states, “(based almost entirely ‘upon information and belief’ without a scintilla of reference to the bases for same) fail to identify a single individual or entity ‘in competition’ with Defendant, much less that such unidentified individual or entity engaged in a conspiracy with Defendant.”
In short, the antitrust claim collapsed because it was speculation masquerading as law.
The court was equally blunt in rejecting plaintiffs’ fraud and misrepresentation claims.
“To allege a cause of action based on fraud,” Siragusa wrote, a plaintiff must plead a false representation, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and damages.
“Here, the alleged fraud is based on the same allegations as Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim and thus is duplicative of that cause of action,” concluded the court. The plaintiffs also “failed to allege fraud with the requisite particularity (CPLR 3016(b)).”
The result was total defeat for Collesano and his clients.
Collesano had attempted twice to consolidate all 27 related actions, stay discovery, and amend counterclaims. Those efforts failed as well, with a previous judge refusing to even sign an order to show cause.
Buffalo Biodiesel’s motion requested the court impose $10,000 in sanctions from Collesano as a punishment for his frivolous conduct. Siragusa declined to impose them. According to a source, Collesano’s conduct has caused havoc in dozens of proceedings involving Buffalo Biodiesel including, but not limited to, interfering with a default, not complying with ordered discovery, not complying with ordered mediation, court outbursts, ex parte communication with the court, and most recently an admission on the record that he was hired by a competitor of Buffalo Biodesel, which raises all sorts of concerns including collusion, conspiracy, tortious interference of contract, and more. In that regard, the decision did not go far enough to prevent this conduct from continuing.
However, a review of Collesano’s financial situation might have played into such a decision. Just months prior, a decision by the Hon. Deborah Chimes rejected Collesano’s efforts to certify a class action against Buffalo Biodiesel because of “evidence submitted [] not sufficiently address[ing] or satisfy[ing] [] factors” including financial resources available to prosecute the action.
In many ways Erie County Supreme Court is being held hostage by Collesano through his conduct. He has levied multiple complaints against judges. This decision will undoubtedly result in more litigation based on Collesano’s own modus operandi and personal vendetta against Buffalo Biodiesel, which is evidence based on most filings—most hundreds of pages repeating the same theories over and over again that read as personal grievances.
The dismissal adds to a growing list of recent headlines involving Collesano including a defamation lawsuit against a neighbor for comments allegedly made about his manhood and a foreclosure action of his Manhattan home.
In the defamation lawsuit, filed on May 11th, 2025, Collesano alleged that Aimee Fink, a neighbor in his condominium complex, launched a campaign to damage his professional reputation and business. The verified complaint chronicled what Collesano described as months of harassment tied to a contentious board election at the Warren House condominium and accused Fink of making defamatory statements, interfering with his business dealings, and disparaging him personally and professionally. However, the heart of his lawsuit centers around a comment levied on January 17th, 2025, where Fink allegedly motioned with her fingers to indicate something small and shouted: “you have a little dick.”
Collesano claims the insult was made publicly, witnessed by building staff, and illustrative of a broader campaign of harassment.
Niagara Action has not independently verified the claims made in this lawsuit and presents them solely as allegations, which remain unproven unless and until established in court.
Two weeks after the January lobby incident, Collesano says he told Fink he intended to sue her. According to the filing, she responded by thrusting her middle finger in his face and calling police. The episode generated an NYPD report but no criminal charges.
In September 2025 the Board of Managers of The Warren House Condominium filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York County against attorney Collesano, his wife Mandy Collesano, and PNC Bank, N.A. The action seeks to foreclose a lien against Unit 11F where Collesano both resides and purportedly operates his law practice.
According to the verified complaint filed by the Board, Collesano fell significantly behind on his financial obligations to the condominium. As a unit owner, he was required to pay common charges of $981.51 per month, an additional $65 monthly storage fee, and special assessments in the amounts of $285.07 and $1,318.68. According to the complaint, these charges are not optional and they were expressly required under the building’s Declaration, By-Laws, and the New York Condominium Act. The Board alleges that Collesano failed to make the required payments and allowed arrears to accumulate to $18,791.35 as of January 1st, 2025, resulting in a lien being recorded in February 2025. Although he later made a lump-sum payment of $25,000 in April, the lien remained unsatisfied and charges continued to accrue. By the time the lawsuit was filed, Collesano allegedly owed an additional $18,778.53 in unpaid common charges and assessments.
The complaint seeks not only recovery of arrears but also foreclosure of the lien on Collesano’s unit. His wife is named to ensure any tenancy rights are terminated while PNC Bank is named because it holds a $125,000 second mortgage that would be wiped out. The unit is further encumbered by a $630,000 first mortgage held by the First National Bank of Long Island.
In addition, the Board is requesting the appointment of a receiver to collect rent, reimbursement of sums it may advance for taxes or insurance, and attorneys’ fees projected at $30,000 or more. If successful, the action would result in the sale of Collesano’s unit at auction.
Public records show Collesano also has a history of tax liens and financial encumbrances tied to him. These include a $38,847.43 federal tax lien filed in 2009, a $7,307.89 federal tax lien filed in 2010, and a $5,510.49 federal tax lien filed in 2011, along with additional liens recorded through at least 2015, some later released.
Collesano is also involved in a defamation case. In May 2025, he and his company, NYC Property Expo, Inc., which also purportedly operates out of his Warren House unit along with his legal practice, filed suit against Elegran LLC and Aimee Fink, a neighbor in the Warren House.
