Tyra Banks is embroiled in a legal dispute, facing a lawsuit for $2.8 million related to her ice cream shop venture, Smize & Dream. The complaint has been filed by Christopher Powell, a landlord in Washington, D.C., who claims that Banks and her business partner, Louis Martin, violated a lease agreement for a location in the Eastern Market neighborhood.
According to reports from NBC Washington, Powell asserts that the duo abandoned their commitment to a 10-year lease signed in April 2024. He alleges that they redirected their efforts to a new site in Sydney, Australia, despite having already initiated plans for the D.C. shop. Powell contends that their departure from the project in June 2024 has resulted in a significant breach of contract.
While the lease was still in effect, Banks and Martin launched a Smize & Dream pop-up shop nearby, an event that attracted notable attendees, including Vice President Kamala Harris. Powell emphasizes that he made substantial investments during the planning stages and had to decline offers from other potential tenants, leading to what he describes as “deep financial loss.” He states that this lawsuit became necessary to recover damages incurred from their actions.
In response, the legal team representing Banks and Martin has characterized the lawsuit as meritless. They argue that Powell’s claims are primarily directed at School of SMiZE LLC, rather than at Banks and Martin personally. Furthermore, they have cited multiple issues with the property, including “myriad mechanical, electrical, and plumbing deficiencies” that were reportedly not in “good working order.” This situation, they claim, necessitated repairs estimated at approximately $980,000, contributing to their decision to withdraw from the lease.
The court filings reveal that Powell is seeking back rent and future payments, which contribute to the substantial claim of $2.8 million. Powell’s attorney, Arziki Adamu, is expected to respond to a motion to dismiss filed by Banks and Martin’s legal representatives by December 30, 2023. As the case unfolds, both parties remain in a legal standoff, with the outcome dependent on the court’s assessment of the claims and counterclaims presented.
As this dispute continues, it highlights the complexities that can arise in business ventures, particularly in the competitive landscape of retail. The resolution of this case will be closely watched by those in the industry and beyond.
