New York Attorney Michael Collesano Sues Female Neighbor for Saying he has Small Genitals
- Niagara Action
- 3 hours ago
- 3 min read
Michael Collesano, a Manhattan-based attorney and real estate broker, has filed a defamation lawsuit that places an insult about his genitals at the center of a court case. The suit was filed earlier this year in New York County Supreme Court.
Collesano, owner of unit 11F at 155 East 34th Street, sued neighbor and fellow broker, Aimee Fink, alleging she launched a campaign to damage his professional reputation and business.
The verified complaint chronicles what Collesano describes as months of harassment tied to a contentious board election at the Warren House condominium and specifically accuses Fink of making defamatory statements, interfering with his business dealings, and disparaging him personally and professionally.
But the heart of the lawsuit lies in a single encounter: on January 17th, 2025, as Collesano and his wife were loading luggage in their condominium lobby, Fink allegedly motioned with her fingers to indicate a small distance and shouted: “you have a little dick.”
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.
The complaint claims the insult was made publicly, witnessed by building staff, and emblematic of a broader campaign of harassment. It also chronicles other clashes including Fink allegedly telling residents that Collesano was in arrears on common charges, disparaging his wife Mandy as “gross,” and accusing him of writing a letter that sparked panic among owners. The pleadings describe Fink as having used an alias email to probe his business, improperly shared confidential information, and leveraged her position on the board for personal gain.
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.
A Juris Doctor consulted for this story noted that many of the statements cited in the complaint — including the crude genitalia remark — are the type of insults and rhetorical flourishes that courts often treat as opinion rather than actionable fact. Under New York law, to prove defamation a plaintiff must show a false statement of fact, publication to a third party, and reputational harm. Vulgar insults rarely meet that standard.
The timing laid out in Collesano’s complaint also complicates the case. The most prominent insult was made in January, yet his threat to sue came two weeks later. Critics argue this sequencing makes it appear that he escalated a personal dispute into formal litigation, thereby amplifying an insult that might otherwise have faded quickly.
By filing suit, Collesano has guaranteed that the phrase he found so damaging will now be preserved in court records, press coverage, and online archives. Rather than suppressing the remark, the lawsuit risks ensuring its permanent visibility, a dynamic commonly described as the “Streisand effect.”
Beyond the drama, the case raises deeper issues about Collesano’s conduct as an attorney bound by the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.:
Rule 3.1 (Non-Meritorious Claims) bars lawyers from pursuing frivolous lawsuits. A case centered on vulgar name-calling risks being seen as meritless, brought not for legitimate redress but for revenge.
Rule 4.4 (Respect for Rights of Third Persons) prohibits using legal means to harass or embarrass. By spotlighting humiliating personal insults, there could be an appearance of weaponizing the law against a neighbor.
Rule 8.4 (Misconduct) broadly bans conduct prejudicial to justice or damaging to a lawyer’s fitness to practice. A lawsuit over playground-level insults risks eroding public confidence in the profession, in addition to using one's standing the legal system to injure others.
Rule 3.2 (Delay of Litigation) forbids tactics designed only to burden or increase expense. If the suit’s purpose is to drain Fink financially, that too would violate professional duties.
Rule 8.4(h) prohibits conduct reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice. Escalating a crude personal slight into high-stakes litigation calls into question one's judgment and restraint.
Of note, Niagara Action is not stating that the above-referenced rules have been violated by Michael Collesano. Niagara Action, in consultation with an individual who has a Juris Doctorate, compiled a list of Rules of Professional Conduct that may be applicable given the facts outlined herein.
Collesano’s lawsuit seeks damages for defamation, business defamation, and unfair competition, naming both Fink and her brokerage as defendants. He frames the case as a defense of his livelihood and reputation.
DOWNLOAD THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE:
New York Attorney Michael Collesano Sues Female Neighbor for Saying he has Small Genitals