In Pantelis P. Mestousis et al. v. Michael Saccente, Justice Gretchen Walsh of the Westchester Commercial Division denied dueling motions for summary judgment in a sprawling dispute over a failed multimillion-dollar quarry acquisition and an alleged $70,000 personal loan. The decision highlights the court’s rigorous application of summary judgment standards, particularly in the context of fraud-based claims and oral agreements.

Background

The dispute arises from a complex business relationship between plaintiff Pantelis Mestousis—a seasoned real estate investor—and defendant Michael Saccente, a former tenant of one of Mestousis’ Bronx properties. In 2021, the two partnered to acquire a quarry and related assets in Wassaic, NY, through two jointly owned entities: 138 Kent Rd LLC and Harlem Valley Gravel & Sand Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that Saccente made material misrepresentations regarding his financial condition to secure commercial loans needed to close the quarry transaction. Specifically, they claim that Saccente submitted a Personal Financial Statement (PFS) to Westfield Bank omitting several judgments and a federal tax lien. The bank later withdrew its financing commitment, citing those omissions. Plaintiffs assert that the failed deal caused them to lose a $250,000 down payment and incur substantial additional costs in alternative financing and professional fees.

Separately, plaintiffs also claim that they loaned Saccente $70,000 in June 2022 to purchase a Ferrari—a loan he allegedly never repaid.

The amended complaint includes seven causes of action: fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of oral contract, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. Both sides moved for summary judgment—Saccente seeking dismissal of all but the oral contract claim, and the plaintiffs seeking partial summary judgment on liability.

The Court’s Analysis

Justice Walsh denied both motions in full, finding triable issues of fact across the board.

Fraud and Misrepresentation Claims (First–Third Causes of Action):

The court declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims, rejecting Saccente’s argument that Mestousis, as a sophisticated investor, could not have reasonably relied on his alleged misstatements. The court emphasized that reasonable reliance is often a factual question, especially where the parties had a longstanding relationship—including a history as landlord and tenant—and jointly owned business entities.

Moreover, the plaintiffs presented evidence that Saccente told Mestousis he had over $3 million in liquid assets and failed to disclose substantial outstanding judgments. Although Saccente claimed the bank’s decision to withdraw financing was due to missed deadlines, the court found a sufficient factual dispute as to causation.

Breach of Contract (Fourth Cause of Action):

The court also found factual disputes precluded summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. Saccente argued that he merely applied to be a guarantor and could not control the bank’s decision. Plaintiffs contended that his failure to disclose material financial information breached his obligation and directly caused the financing to collapse. Again, the court held that these issues required trial.

Ferrari Loan Claims (Fifth–Seventh Causes of Action):
The court denied summary judgment on both sides regarding the alleged $70,000 loan for a Ferrari purchase. Plaintiffs claimed they made the loan via three checks from their companies and that Saccente purchased the car shortly thereafter. Saccente disputed the loan characterization, asserting instead that the checks were part of a cash-for-checks exchange. Given the absence of a written agreement and the factual disputes, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Conclusion

Justice Walsh’s ruling underscores the principle that summary judgment is a “drastic remedy” not to be granted where credibility and intent are at issue. Here, competing narratives about financial disclosures, causation of damages, and even the nature of a purported Ferrari loan will be resolved at trial. 

The case serves as a cautionary tale for business partners: clarity in documentation and early due diligence is essential, especially in high-value ventures involving personal guarantees.

To learn more about new developments in the Westchester Commercial Division, please subscribe to the Westchester Commercial Division Blog.