North Castle Town Board candidate Sonny Vataj
Federal Suit Claims Vataj Scammed Woman Out of $188,000
By Dan Murphy
Election 2025 in Westchester takes us to the Town of North Castle, where two seats are up on the North Castle Town Board.
One of the candidates is Sonny Vataj, owner of Exit Realty in the Bronx. According to a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York, Nancy Hall is seeking to recover $188,000 from Vitaj stemming from a business partnership gone wrong.
Hall is the plaintiff in the suit and Vitaj is the defendant. The lawsuit states, “In the spring of 2018, plaintiff’s company was renting a small office space in Defendant SONNY VATAJ’s realty office located in the Bronx. Over years in that capacity, Defendant held himself out to be a savvy real estate broker, developer, investor, and landlord.
“On June 7, 2018, the parties agreed to enter a joint investment plan into real estate for their mutual financial benefit. Defendant retained counsel to create the LLC and had an operating agreement drafted between the parties. However, upon information and belief, this agreement was never executed by the parties.
“On June 8, 2018, Plaintiff made the first agreed transfer of $100,000 into the newly formed LLC bank account. Plaintiff made a second transfer of $100,000 on June 13, 2018. In addition, Plaintiff wrote a final payment to Defendant for $30,000 also on June 13, 2018.
“Plaintiff made a total investment of $230,000 for the property purchase. The strategy for investing was that Defendant would analyze listings for opportunities (preferably mixed use) that were selling under market value, and that he would either match Plaintiff’s investment or put in more capital.
“Defendant would periodically send Plaintiff listings or have his agents send listings he thought would be a good fit as he was the expert in this field. However, it was Plaintiff’s understanding from Defendant’s representations that nothing ever materialized, and further, he never transferred his portion of the investment into the Cache LLC account as agreed.
“Though unsigned, it was also the provision that, Plaintiff would take 80% loss on the ultimate tax returns and Defendant would take 20%. Plaintiff filed returns consistent with their agreement this way until 2022 when she discovered Defendant never actually invested any of his own money.
“In the Spring of 2019, Defendant suggested the parties invest Plaintiff’s capital sitting in the Cache LLC account into a short-term hard money loan for 6 months at 8-10% interest.
“Plaintiff was reluctant and questioned this deal, but Defendant promised her a quick turnaround of the investment and quick returns. However, Defendant induced Plaintiff into this new short-term investment as a result of Defendant’s misrepresentations as to the originally proposed real estate investment.
“To the hard money loan, on May 13, 2019, Defendant wrote a first check to “Pendleton Court Apartments” for $100,000 out of Cache Realty Groups bank account followed by a transfer of $88,500 on July 3, 2019.
“Shortly after the time period above, Plaintiff began to hear grumblings from Defendant that there was a delay with the money coming back on time. Defendant insisted Plaintiff get involved with collections calls against the debtor, in an attempt to hide his involvement in the subject loan.
“From November, 2019 and onward, Defendant continually promised that this converted investment was stuck in a delayed litigation process against the debtor to collect on the defaulted loan.
“Apparently and eventually, Defendant had obtained a default judgment against the debtors in the Supreme Court of Bronx County in May, 2021 for $238,000, for a property in issue in the State of Tennessee.
“Defendant then approached Plaintiff about the need to hire a collections lawyer in Tennessee. In January, 2022, Plaintiff approached Defendant to return her money after she suffered severe professional and personal financial hardship.
“In response, Defendant immediately and unexpectedly flew into a rage demanding that there be a phone call with his attorneys, and diverted from Plaintiffs questioning his handling of her money over the years.
“Soon after Defendant’s outburst, he then demanded that Plaintiff vacate her office space which she did on February 13, 2022.
“In the summer of 2023, Plaintiff learned that Defendant had made a motion to enforce the Judgment (for her money) and Plaintiff believed he was actually receiving garnishment checks thereon.
“At that time, it was clear to Plaintiff that she had been defrauded by Defendant. To date, Defendant has never repaid Plaintiff any portion of her investment as agreed and Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer monetary damages.
Count One-Fraudulent Inducement, Concealment and False Pretenses
At the time the above representations were made by Defendant to Plaintiff as to inter alia his equal investment, the real property at issue, the conversion to a hard money loan, the due diligence of the Defendant and the solvency of the debtor, the Defendant was aware that his representations were false.
Plaintiff would not have given money and her later agreements had she been aware of the actual facts, actively concealed by Defendant.
Count Two: Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Defendant’s refusal to return said funds was a breach of fiduciary duty.
Count Four: Unjust Enrichment
By unjustly retaining Plaintiff’s funds, Defendant was unjustly enriched. Defendant obtained the benefit of plaintiff’s money and did not return said funds, though duly demanded.
County Five: Accounting
By virtue of the proposed agreement between the parties and under New York law, and by Defendant’s aforementioned wrongful acts, Plaintiff demands a full, unfettered and timely accounting for all transactions and/or monies collected and expended by Defendant in the transactions stated herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant, for actual, consequential, incidental damages and punitive damages as follows:
Actual and compensatory damages in excess of the sum of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($188,500);
Consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial but in the amount of at least $600,000.” End of suit.
We spoke to the plaintiff Nancy Hall to get an update on the lawsuit. Editor’s Note: This is not the same Nancy Hall as a Court Clerk in North Castle who shares the same name.
“We had depositions in June, and we waiting to receive the documents accounting exactly what happened to my money. This is all my money, he never deposited his money like he told me when we formed the company and the partnership.
“I knew Sonny for five years before investing with him. He helped me start my business. Then we formed the partnership and COVID hit. He kept saying I’m taking care of it and finally it got to a point when I had to ask for my money back and he got aggressive and accused me of questioning him. Then he lawyered up and I was flabbergasted.”
Hall said that the property in question in Tennessee where the hard money loan and investment was made was only foreclosed on three months after she confronted him and asked for her money back.
“He handled all of this deal. He signed the check from our LLC but never signed the operating agreement. He was a pillar in the Bronx and I trusted this guy. I never dreamed I had to worry.
“But I needed my $188,000 back. I wasn’t in a position to lose that kind of money.
“I have been generous to Sonny over the years, as a thank you for his help with my business. I hoped that he would have some type of compassion for me. But he didn’t give a crap and took the money. “
We asked Hall her opinion on whether Sonny should serve on the North Castle Town Board.
“I don’t think he should be running for anything. After being his friend for years and compensating him for his help with my business, now I think he is an unscrupulous person.
“He holds himself up to be a pillar in the community. I feel like I was taken advantage of. I looked up to him as a mentor. I was generous and respectful to him. I didn’t deserve this.
“It’s been years and I haven’t seen a nickel. And then I find out that he had collected $45,000 from the judgement without so much as a phone call to me.”
“I haven’t spoken to Sonny since he kicked me out of his office. He’s not a good person.
“It turns out that there were other debtors on the property that were first lienholders, and he acted like getting a personal guarantee from these people would secure the loan. In fact, these people did not have the net worth to secure this type of loan and were not savvy developers as he described. Which led to the property being overleveraged and turning out badly for me.”
Vataj and Michael Akavan are the two democrats running for Town Council. Town Councilwoman Barbara DiGiacinto and Mel Orellana are the republican candidates. Democrat Supervisor Joe Rendi is running unopposed.
The lawsuit can be viewed online-Civ. action number -24-cv-2817-Nancy Hall against Sonny Vataj.
Early voting starts tomorrow, Saturday, October 25. Election day is Tuesday, November 4.
Editor’s Note: Rising Media Group and Yonkerstimes.com are the owners of the former North Castle News
