A New Jersey developer is suing its lender, alleging the agency strung it together with guarantees of a HUD refinancing whereas an affiliate positioned itself to take a $100 million Newark residence tower for a fraction of its worth.
Tona Development and Administration filed an adversary grievance in opposition to Bravo Capital and its affiliate BPT 50S Funding final month within the U.S. Chapter Courtroom for the District of New Jersey, a part of the Chapter 11 case for 50 Sussex Redevelopment City Renewal LLC, the entity that owns Hoyt Tower, a 203-unit constructing at 50-54 Sussex Avenue in Newark. The swimsuit accuses Bravo, led by founder and CEO Aaron Krawitz, of fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract and tortious interference.
“We trusted Aaron Krawitz and Bravo to be truthful lenders who would information us by way of the HUD course of. They didn’t do what they promised,” mentioned Domenick Tonacchio, founder, chairman and president of Tona. “Now I stand to lose the whole lot.”
Tona first closed on the property in 2022 and poured 12 flooring of concrete utilizing its personal funds earlier than closing on a $50 million development mortgage in 2023. The 15-story undertaking was on the coronary heart of Newark’s College Heights neighborhood and marked the then-Staten Island-based agency’s first push into New Jersey.
Tona took out a $62.5 million bridge mortgage from Bravo affiliate BPT in October 2024 to repay the development mortgage on the newly constructed tower and engaged Bravo the identical month to course of a everlasting HUD mortgage that might refinance the bridge debt. The lawsuit alleges that after the developer hit an 85 p.c occupancy threshold and turned in a accomplished mortgage utility by August 2025, Bravo started stalling and in the end by no means submitted the paperwork — even because the property was individually appraised at about $100 million, nicely above the debt.
The grievance alleges the delay was solely intentional. It says Krawitz stood to profit personally if BPT ended up proudly owning the property by way of default, since Bravo and BPT are each below his management. After BPT filed to foreclose on the property, Tona sued.
Tona additionally accuses Bravo of interfering with an unrelated refinancing of two Brooklyn properties that might have funded its curiosity funds on the Newark mortgage, claiming Krawitz instructed a co-lender on that deal, Infinity Business Lending, that Tona’s principals had been “problematic,” which the developer says derailed that financing too.
Infinity wrote in an electronic mail cited within the grievance that it was withdrawing partially due to Tonacchio’s “historical past of repeatedly trying to make use of the court docket system to barter” round mortgage necessities.
Bravo tells a unique story. An individual aware of the lender’s accounts instructed The Actual Deal that Bravo was actively processing the HUD refinancing by way of fall 2025 when Tonacchio himself allegedly pivoted away from it, opting to pursue a CMBS mortgage he believed would shut quicker and with fewer circumstances.
The mortgage settlement gave Bravo an “unique proper, however not an obligation” to deal with the HUD course of, the individual mentioned, and it was Tonacchio — not Bravo — who allegedly walked away from it.
A November 2025 letter from Tona’s normal counsel to Bravo, cited in court docket filings, instructed the lender {that a} CMBS mortgage was now the corporate’s “solely path ahead” and warned that they would wish to declare chapter if that financing fell by way of.
Tona allegedly pulled out of the mortgage utility course of after Bravo’s third-party environmental report flagged restore work that Tonacchio was unwilling to finish. The developer’s subsequent refinancing makes an attempt — a CMBS deal launched by way of BMO, and a mortgage from Sheridan Capital — additionally allegedly fell aside.
Tona allegedly stopped making curiosity funds on the BPT mortgage in December 2025, and the debt has since grown previous $70.7 million with default curiosity accruing at roughly $43,000 a day, in response to court docket information. Property taxes on the constructing had additionally allegedly gone unpaid, and Tona’s chapter submitting lists about 20 unpaid distributors, together with appraisal agency Newmark whose $100 million valuation the developer cites in its fraud declare.
On July 23, a chapter decide denied Tona’s movement to dam the appointment of a receiver over the property, clearing Bravo to put in Ian Lagowitz of Trigild LLC to take over operations. The receiver now controls a property producing roughly $375,000 a month in hire.
Learn extra
Staten Island’s Tona secures $50M for first NJ development
Contractor hits JDS with suit over joint venture dispute at Brooklyn condo project
Watermark Capital lands $125M for office-to-resi play in Dumbo
