Tyra Banks is embroiled in a significant legal dispute, facing a lawsuit amounting to $2.8 million related to her ice cream venture, Smize & Dream. The case has been brought forward by Washington, D.C. landlord, Christopher Powell, who claims that Banks and her business partner, Louis Martin, violated a lease agreement for a space in the city’s Eastern Market neighborhood. Powell alleges that the duo abandoned the project shortly after signing the lease, redirecting their efforts to a location in Sydney, Australia.
The legal action stems from a lease that was signed in April 2024. Powell asserts that by June 2024, Banks and Martin had vacated the premises, despite having previously launched a Smize & Dream pop-up shop nearby, an event that notably attracted Vice President Kamala Harris. Powell claims that he incurred substantial expenses during the planning phase and turned down other potential tenants based on the agreement he had with Banks and Martin.
In a statement obtained by WBLS, Powell expressed that the situation has resulted in “deep financial loss” and has compelled him to seek legal recourse to recover damages. His complaint demands back rent along with future monthly payments, contributing to the hefty claim.
In response, the legal representatives for Banks and Martin have described the lawsuit as meritless. They argue that it represents an attempt by Powell to extract money from them unjustly. Furthermore, they note that the claims are directed at School of SMiZE LLC, rather than Banks and Martin as individuals. The defense has also raised concerns regarding the property itself, citing numerous “mechanical, electrical, and plumbing deficiencies” that were not in “good working order.” They estimate that repairs would cost approximately $980,000, which influenced their decision to withdraw from the lease.
The legal documents reveal that Powell’s attorney, Arziki Adamu, is expected to respond by December 30 to a motion to dismiss filed by the defense. While Powell’s counsel has refrained from further comments at this time, the dispute continues to unfold in the legal arena, with a resolution dependent on the court’s review of the case.
As this situation develops, it highlights the complexities of business agreements and the far-reaching implications of contractual obligations in the entrepreneurial landscape.
