Tyra Banks’ Ice Cream Dream Turns Into $2.8M Lawsuit Over Abandoned D.C. Storefront

Tyra Banks’ ice cream company, Smize & Dream, a socially driven brand she founded to blend premium desserts with youth empowerment, is now at the center of a costly legal battle over a planned Washington, D.C. storefront.

According to Entertainment Weekly, a landlord has filed a lawsuit seeking more than $2.8 million, accusing the model and entrepreneur of abandoning a long-term lease just months after it was finalized. According to documents filed in D.C. federal court, property owner Christopher Powell says he signed a 10-year commercial lease in April 2024.

The agreement named Tyra Banks, her ice cream brand Smize & Dream, her nonprofit School of SMiZE, and business partner Louis Martin as tenants. The space was intended to serve as a flagship storefront for the brand.

Powell alleges Banks personally presented the project as a mission-driven venture rather than a simple retail shop. The lawsuit claims she described the location as a platform to provide underserved youth with education tied to science, sales, and hospitality. Powell also alleges Banks said the D.C. store would anchor a broader global expansion plan.

The filing states the property was accepted “as is” following discussions that began in March 2024. Powell claims he remained involved in ongoing conversations about design and build-out plans well into the spring. He later alleges those designs were publicly connected to a Smize & Dream location in Sydney, Australia, while progress in D.C. came to a halt.

According to the complaint, Banks and Martin vacated the property in June 2024 and stopped responding to inquiries about rent and lease responsibilities. Powell claims no rent was ever paid and says he had no warning that the agreement was in danger of collapsing.

The lawsuit further claims that weeks after leaving the property, Banks and Martin opened a Smize & Dream pop-up location nearby. Powell alleges this occurred while their lease for his building remained active and unresolved.

Powell says he received a letter in September from Banks and Martin citing alleged issues with the property. The complaint describes those claims as “untrue and irrelevant” and alleges the letter included threats of negative publicity if legal action was pursued. The filing also claims the defendants suggested any judgment could be avoided by shifting liability to a company with no assets.

Powell is seeking at least $2,831,331, along with late fees, interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs allowed under the lease. His attorney, Arziki Adamu, said Powell “executed a valid lease” and had “no option but to sue” once the deal was allegedly abandoned.

Attorneys for Banks and Martin have not publicly addressed the lawsuit. Court records show their lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the case in November, leaving the matter for the court to decide.