In Voss Events NYC, LLC v. Abner Properties Co., No. 650014/2026, 2026 WL 2534410 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 17, 2026), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint alleging housing discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law.
From the decision:
The cause of action for a violation of Executive Law § 296(5)(b)(1), a section of the New York State Human Rights Law, is dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). That section of the statute prohibits discrimination in the leasing of commercial property on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. While on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, the court must accept the pleaded facts as true and give plaintiff every favorable inference, “it is also axiomatic that factual allegations that consist of bare legal conclusions are not entitled to such consideration.” Hispanic Aids Forum v Estate of Bruno, 16 AD3d 294, 295 (1st Dept. 2005) (citations omitted) [Executive Law § 296 claim dismissed for thin allegations, a single sentence consisting of unattributed statements]; see generally Mamoon v Dot Net, Inc., supra; Delran v Prada USA Corp., supra.
In support of its claim, the plaintiff merely alleges that the defendants ultimately refused to lease the premises to the plaintiff “because” the plaintiff is a “gay-owned business catering to the LGBT+ community and/or that its sister companies promote drag shows and represent drag performers.” Beyond that single unsupported and unattributed assertion, the complaint “fail[s] to plead any concrete factual allegations in support of [plaintiff’s] claim that defendants were suddenly motivated to frustrate” the lease negotiation by anti-LGBTQ bias. See Farkas v. Riv. House Realty Co., Inc., 173 AD3d 405, 405 (1st Dept. 2019) (affirming dismissal of Executive Law § 296 discrimination claim for same reason); Hispanic Aids Forum v Estate of Bruno, supra. Indeed, the defendants were fully aware of the plaintiff’s intended use of the premises from the outset of the parties’ negotiations and made extensive efforts to execute a lease.
The court also dismissed plaintiff’s claims of promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and fraud, but denied defendant’s motion as to plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract (based on allegations that defendant’s failed to return a security deposit to plaintiff).