Buffalo Biodiesel lawsuits span more than a decade and run in both directions: the Tonawanda, New York company has filed hundreds of breach-of-contract cases against the restaurants it services, and has itself been sued by customers, investigated by the New York Attorney General, and sanctioned by an appeals court for destroying evidence. The most recent major ruling, in January 2026, dismissed a 27-restaurant omnibus suit against the company; two weeks later, Buffalo Biodiesel filed its own defamation suit against The Buffalo News.
The 2016 Attorney General Agreement
The company’s litigation reputation traces to a wave of small-claims filings that began in March 2013. Buffalo Biodiesel filed more than 600 breach-of-contract lawsuits against restaurants in western New York and neighboring states, almost all in Buffalo City Court, seeking anywhere from a few thousand to tens of thousands of dollars per defendant.1WIVB. Buffalo Biodiesel to Withdraw, Vacate Hundreds of Judgment Applications Against Local Businesses
Then–Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office investigated and found the complaints were “virtual carbon copies” with little specific detail about the alleged breaches. Most restaurants never responded, and Buffalo Biodiesel then sought default judgments, most of which the Attorney General said were “improperly filed in court.”1WIVB. Buffalo Biodiesel to Withdraw, Vacate Hundreds of Judgment Applications Against Local Businesses
Under a March 2016 agreement, the company had to withdraw or vacate all pending default judgment applications, return money collected through those judgments, and give formal notice of intent to sue before filing any new lawsuits against businesses.1WIVB. Buffalo Biodiesel to Withdraw, Vacate Hundreds of Judgment Applications Against Local Businesses
The 27-Restaurant Omnibus Suit Dismissed in January 2026
Twenty-seven restaurants, represented by Manhattan attorney Michael Collesano, sued Buffalo Biodiesel in Erie County Supreme Court alleging fraud, monopolistic conduct, and abusive litigation tactics. Their central theory was that the company had violated the Donnelly Act, New York’s antitrust statute, by restraining trade and monopolizing the used cooking oil market.2Niagara Falls Reporter. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Buffalo Biodiesel Brought by Customers
On January 8, 2026, Judge Michael A. Siragusa dismissed the case entirely. The court found the action duplicated more than two dozen cases already pending between the same parties and was barred under New York’s procedural rules against duplicative litigation. On the antitrust claims, Siragusa noted that the plaintiffs never identified a single competitor or alleged any conspiracy to restrain trade, calling the Donnelly Act argument “speculation masquerading as law” built “almost entirely ‘upon information and belief’ without a scintilla of reference to the bases for same.” The fraud claims were dismissed as duplicative of the breach-of-contract claims and insufficiently detailed.2Niagara Falls Reporter. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Buffalo Biodiesel Brought by Customers
Siragusa wrote that the action “should never have been filed in the first place” and that the plaintiffs’ factual assertions were often “inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence.”2Niagara Falls Reporter. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Buffalo Biodiesel Brought by Customers Buffalo Biodiesel had asked the court to sanction Collesano $10,000 for frivolous conduct; the judge declined.
The omnibus filing followed an earlier failed attempt at a class action. Judge Deborah Chimes had rejected Collesano’s motion to certify a class against Buffalo Biodiesel, finding the evidence did not sufficiently address the financial resources available to prosecute such a case.2Niagara Falls Reporter. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Buffalo Biodiesel Brought by Customers
The Defamation Suit Against The Buffalo News
Two weeks after the omnibus dismissal, Buffalo Biodiesel filed its own suit. On January 23, 2026, the company brought a 76-page complaint in Erie County Supreme Court against The Buffalo News, reporter Mackenzie Shuman, and Collesano, alleging defamation, libel, slander, and tortious interference with contract.3Niagara Action. Buffalo News and NYC Attorney Sued by Buffalo Biodiesel
The complaint targets three Buffalo News articles published in August, September, and October 2025 that the company says contained false information about its regulatory status with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation and its business practices. Buffalo Biodiesel claims its in-house counsel warned the newspaper about inaccuracies before publication and the warnings were ignored.3Niagara Action. Buffalo News and NYC Attorney Sued by Buffalo Biodiesel
The allegations against Collesano go further. The complaint accuses him of unethical solicitation by mining the NYSCEF electronic filing database to identify and contact Buffalo Biodiesel’s litigation opponents, and of falsely representing himself as lead counsel in a class action that was never certified. Buffalo Biodiesel also alleges that Collesano and Shuman worked in concert with competitors, naming Lifecycle Renewables, Inc. and Baker Commodities Inc., to damage the company’s reputation and poach its restaurant suppliers. The company cites concrete harm, including a denied variance request at a Grand Island Zoning Board meeting where residents allegedly referenced the news coverage.3Niagara Action. Buffalo News and NYC Attorney Sued by Buffalo Biodiesel The case was active as of late January 2026.4Trellis Law. Buffalo Biodiesel Inc v. Buffalo News, Michael J Collesano
Buffalo Biodiesel v. Blue Bridge Financial: Dismissed for Spoliation
In a separate action, Buffalo Biodiesel sued Blue Bridge Financial, LLC for libel and tortious interference with business relations, alleging Blue Bridge had sent an email to a financial services company that mischaracterized their dispute. During discovery, Blue Bridge asked for all communications between Buffalo Biodiesel and that financial services company. Buffalo Biodiesel disclosed that it had failed to issue a litigation hold and the emails had been deleted during the course of the lawsuit.5NY Daily Record. Fourth Department Spoliation: Buffalo Biodiesel v. Blue Bridge Financial
The trial court struck Buffalo Biodiesel’s complaint as a spoliation sanction. In June 2024, the Appellate Division’s Fourth Department affirmed, holding that the failure to suspend routine email deletion during active litigation constituted “grossly negligent spoliation of evidence” and that striking the complaint was within the trial court’s broad discretion.5NY Daily Record. Fourth Department Spoliation: Buffalo Biodiesel v. Blue Bridge Financial The case ended with dismissal with prejudice, meaning the company lost its claims permanently because it destroyed the evidence at issue.
Federal Fraud Case Against Lifecycle Renewables
Buffalo Biodiesel filed a federal fraud suit against Lifecycle Renewables, Inc. in the Western District of New York in January 2025. Lifecycle Renewables filed counterclaims. In October 2025, the parties jointly agreed to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York, where it remained active under a new docket number as of late 2025.6PACER Monitor. Buffalo Biodiesel, Inc v. Lifecycle Renewables, Inc Lifecycle Renewables is one of the competitors Buffalo Biodiesel named in its later defamation suit against The Buffalo News.
Customer Complaints Behind the Litigation Pattern
Better Business Bureau complaints filed between 2024 and 2026 give context for the small-claims cases the company continues to file. Recurring themes include delayed or missing payments for collected oil, difficulty reaching the company by phone, and prolonged waits for the removal of grease collection containers after contracts ended, with some customers reporting wait times of several months to over a year.7BBB. Buffalo Biodiesel Inc Complaints
Multiple complainants also described being threatened with lawsuits or hit with pre-suit notices after attempting to cancel service or switch to a competitor. Reported demands included $2,400 to exit a contract or $750 for missing equipment. One customer reported being sued for more than $11,000 based on claims their business produced 350 gallons of waste oil per week. The company frequently cited exclusive collection agreements in its responses, asserting that customers had violated their contractual obligations.7BBB. Buffalo Biodiesel Inc Complaints
Other complaints involved leaking vats and full containers left in place, raising environmental and safety concerns. The company said customers are contractually obligated to notify them seven business days before containers are full. In one exchange, a company representative responded to a complaint about theft of oil by writing: “This is nonsense. We have been in business for 20 years you nut.”7BBB. Buffalo Biodiesel Inc Complaints Over the three years preceding the most recent data, the BBB recorded 36 complaints, most involving service or repair issues.8BBB. Buffalo Biodiesel Inc Complaints – Page 2
A Note on the DEC Permit Matter
Buffalo Biodiesel’s 2025 permitting problem with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is often discussed alongside the lawsuits, but it is a regulatory proceeding rather than litigation. The DEC notified the company that its Tonawanda facility had operated without a required Solid Waste Management Facility permit for seven years and, in a July 30, 2025 letter, ordered it to resolve the issue by August 29 or shut down.9WIVB. Buffalo Biodiesel Must Fix Permitting Issues or Stop Operations, DEC Orders The company reported resolving the permitting matters by October 2025 and was working on final approvals as of December 2025.10Waste Today Magazine. Buffalo Biodiesel Shares Updates on Part 360 Application to DEC, Tonawanda Facility Progress The regulatory status of that permit is one of the subjects Buffalo Biodiesel says The Buffalo News reported inaccurately, and it forms part of the basis for the 2026 defamation complaint.