JAY-Z is allowed to press forward with his latest motion to have his rape lawsuit dismissed, a judge has ruled.

Judge Analisa Torres granted a request on Thursday (January 2) from the rap legend and his legal team to be able to file a dismissal motion for the bombshell lawsuit, which accuses Hov of raping a 13-year-old girl alongside Diddy 25 years ago.

The request was opposed by the anonymous accuser’s attorney, Tony Buzbee, and the woman has until the end of February to file a counter.

JAY-Z’s lawyer, Alex Spiro, had already laid out his argument for why the suit should be dismissed in an earlier filing, citing legal loopholes regarding the time and location of the alleged rape.

 

In it, Spiro insisted that the woman’s claim doesn’t fall under the “lookback” window of New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act (GMVA) as the alleged assault occured several months after the law was established.

“Plaintiff asserts a violation of the GMV Law for conduct that purportedly occurred in September 2000. But the GMV Law was not enacted until December 19, 2000, three months after the FAC claims the conduct occurred, and cannot apply retroactively to create a cause of action unavailable to Plaintiff at the time in question,” the filing reads.

Spiro further argued that the lawsuit should be tossed because the GMVA statute only applies to incidents within city limits, whereas the woman claims she was raped at a property that Spiro says “would have been located outside the territorial boundaries of New York City.”

The plaintiff alleges she was raped at an afterparty hosted by Diddy at a “large white residence with a gated U-shaped driveway” roughly 20 minutes away by car from NYC’s Radio City Music Hall, where the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards were hosted earlier that night.

Spiro held a press conference at Roc Nation’s headquarters earlier this month where he presented evidence that he says refutes the claims against his client.

During his presentation, the attorney showed photos of JAY-Z at a different event to the one his accuser said he was at and claimed that none of the properties owned by Puffy at the time matched that of the description in the lawsuit.