Will Michael Collesano Win Suit Over Tiny Genitals Comment? Chat GPT Says 'Certainly Not'

Niagara Action
Dec 15
5 min read

Niagara Action previously reported on Michael Collesano, a Manhattan-based attorney and real estate broker, who filed a defamation lawsuit against a neighbor for comments allegedly made about his small manhood.

The lawsuit, filed on May 11th, 2025, in New York County Supreme Court, has gained traction in recent months with all parties having filed answers and requests for subpoenas.

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.”

A comment that will now live forever in court filings . . . .

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.

Collesano claims the insult was made publicly, witnessed by building staff, and illustrative of a broader campaign of harassment.

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.

The lawsuit prompted us to ask the question, will Collesano likely be successful in his defamation lawsuit against Fink? We uploaded Collesano's Complaint and asked Chat GPT—this is what it said:

Will the lawsuit for defamation brought by Attorney Michael Collesano against Aimee Fink for a comment alleging that he has “a little dick” be successful?

To put it plainly: almost certainly not. And New York case law makes that conclusion all but inevitable.

According to the verified complaint filed by Michael Collesano, he alleges that during a January 17, 2025 interaction outside his condominium, Aimee Fink “motioned with her fingers indicating a small distance and screamed at him, ‘you have a little dick.’” This isolated insult—undeniably crude, juvenile, and hostile—forms part of his defamation count.

But in New York, words being mean is not the same thing as words being defamatory, and courts have repeated this principle for decades. Defamation requires a false assertion of fact, not a moment of playground-style name-calling. New York courts explicitly hold that “statements that are merely abusive, annoying, or embarrassing are not actionable” because they lack the factual content required to be defamatory.

1. The Threshold Problem: It’s Not a “Fact”—It’s an Insult

Under New York law, a statement is only defamatory if (1) it is capable of being proven true or false, and (2) a reasonable listener would understand it as conveying actual fact. Courts routinely dismiss suits over insults, epithets, or obvious hyperbole because they are not factual assertions at all.

Calling someone a vulgar name—even a sexually demeaning one—falls squarely into the category of nonactionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole. New York’s Court of Appeals has held repeatedly that “[l]oose, figurative, or hyperbolic statements, even if deprecating, are not actionable because they cannot be proven true or false.”

When a neighbor in a heated interpersonal conflict yells a sexual insult, no reasonable person interprets that as a literal medical or anatomical measurement. It is understood universally as an expression of disdain—not as a factual representation of physical traits. Courts know this, and they reject similar claims as a matter of law.

2. The “Truth Is a Defense” Principle Only Underscores the Problem for the Plaintiff

New York law makes truth an absolute defense to defamation—and, importantly, the defendant does not need to prove truth unless the statement is the kind that is capable of being true or false in the first place.

Here, the comment is so plainly an insult rather than an empirical claim that courts would not even reach the truth inquiry. The statement’s very nature keeps it out of defamation territory.

But if it were treated as “factual,” the plaintiff would face another challenge: he would be litigating the size of his own penis in public court. Legal commentators note that plaintiffs who bring lawsuits over insults like this “open the door” to discovery and proof on the very subject they say is defamatory. The fact that this lawsuit invites that possibility only amplifies how unserious the claim appears—and how unlikely it is that any court would permit it to move forward.

3. Context Matters—and the Complaint’s Own Facts Undermine the Claim

The setting, as pleaded, is a personal dispute between co-residents of a building, escalating over assessments, board disagreements, and interpersonal hostility. The complaint itself describes months of conflict, accusations, and bad blood between the parties. The January 17 exchange occurs in that broader emotional context—not in a professional setting, not in public media, and not in a situation where reasonable observers would treat the insult as conveying factual information.

New York courts emphasize that context determines meaning. In a heated argument, sexual insults are understood as exactly that: insults. Not defamation.

4. New York Requires Defamation Per Se to Be About Profession—Not Anatomy

Collesano, who is both a real estate broker and an attorney, frames the lawsuit as one that injures his professional reputation. But New York defamation-per-se doctrine only applies when the statement:

accuses the plaintiff of a serious crime,
alleges he has a disease,
impugns his profession, or
implies unchastity (historically applied to women).

A remark about genital size has nothing to do with lawyering, real-estate brokerage, or any professional capacity. There is no rule of professional conduct for attorneys or brokers that governs sexual insults or anatomical references. No reasonable reader or listener would conclude that, because someone shouted an obscene remark outside an apartment building, the plaintiff is unfit to practice law.

Put differently: even if everything the complaint alleges is true, New York law simply does not recognize “has a small penis” as a professional allegation.

5. The Complaint’s Tone and Scope Create a Serious Proportionality Issue

Courts also look at proportionality. When a plaintiff seeks judicial intervention over trivial or childish insults, especially in interpersonal disputes, judges often dismiss the action early to avoid turning courts into referees of neighborhood quarrels.

Here, the complaint spans 20 pages and details years of disputes, board politics, emails, elevator conversations, and personal dislike—culminating in a single crude insult shouted during a building disagreement. The sheer mismatch between the legal claim and the conduct alleged highlights why courts treat these suits skeptically.

Put straightforwardly: New York defamation law is not designed to adjudicate playground-level personal attacks between neighbors.

6. Bottom Line: This Lawsuit Is Not Likely to Succeed Under New York Law

When the elements of defamation are matched against the allegation, the result is legally clear:

The statement is not a factual assertion.
It is crude hyperbole, not defamation.
The context shows it was an insult during a dispute, not a published assertion of fact.
It does not relate to the plaintiff’s profession and is not defamation per se.
New York courts routinely dismiss similar claims at the pleadings stage.