Rudy Giuliani has encountered a significant setback in a civil lawsuit concerning accusations that he coerced a former aide into sexual relations.

On Monday, a New York State judge refused to dismiss the workplace harassment case brought by Noelle Dunphy, who claims she was employed by the ex-mayor of New York City from 2019 to 2021.

Filed in May 2023, Dunphy’s lawsuit accuses Giuliani of indulging in alcohol-fueled tirades laced with sexist, racist, and antisemitic language. It also claims he frequently used Viagra and would often point out his “erect penis,” insisting he couldn’t focus on work until Dunphy addressed the situation.

Progress on the case has been slow, bogged down by numerous motions and pretrial procedures. Dunphy submitted a revised complaint in January 2025, and Giuliani responded with a motion to dismiss in March of the same year.

In February, both parties attended a hearing that eventually narrowed the number of issues the defense could raise.

Now, Judge Nicholas W. Moyne of the Supreme Court of New York County has issued a seven-page decision addressing and rejecting all of Giuliani’s remaining defenses, allowing the lawsuit to proceed to the discovery phase.

“The Court finds that the amended complaint states legally cognizable claims upon which relief can be granted,” the order reads. “Factual disputes over the credibility of the plaintiff’s narrative or the exact contours of the relationship are reserved for summary judgment or trial. The motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety.”

The former federal prosecutor’s first line of defense was to launch a standing attack on Dunphy by claiming that her damages had been inflated. This argument, however, did not actually align with how standing doctrine works.

The court explains, at length:

The defendants argue that Ms. Dunphy lacks standing because her demand for damages suspiciously increased from $3.1 million in her pro se Summons with Notice to $10 million in her amended complaint, which they claim demonstrates a lack of injury-in-fact. This argument is without merit. Ms. Dunphy alleges she was sexually assaulted and deprived of approximately $2 million in wages. Being the victim of sexual assault and wage theft constitutes a concrete, cognizable injury. Furthermore, under New York law, a summons with notice does not cap the damages in a subsequently filed complaint once the defendant appears; the complaint becomes the controlling document.

Giuliani went on to argue Dunphy’s specific assault claim was filed outside of the window under the Adult Survivors Act (ASA), a recently passed law that provided a limited look-back window for removing the statute of limitations on certain lawsuits filed by sexual assault victims.

Again, Moyne found the defense’s claims unavailing.

“The ASA created a one-year revival window,” the judge explains, adding that the clock began ticking on Nov. 24, 2022.

“Ms. Dunphy commenced this action within that window,” the order goes on. “The amended complaint alleges that Mr. Giuliani placed the plaintiff in reasonable apprehension of unwarranted sexual contact. Because these threats of violence were intertwined with the allegedly consummated sexual offenses alleged under Penal Law Article 130, the assault claim is sufficiently pled and preserved.”

In a footnote, Moyne takes a broader view of what the amended complaint alleges under Empire State criminal laws — effectively underscoring how relatively limited the claims are in the lawsuit.

Again, the decision and order, at length:

Giuliani’s alleged actions would, if proven, constitute sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including but not limited to rape in the first degree (§ 130.35), rape in the third degree (§ 130.25) sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65), sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55), sexual misconduct (§ 130.20), and forcible touching (§ 130.52).

While the lawsuit does not seek criminal punishment, the claims dovetail closely with sexual assault-based crimes.

Dunphy also claimed liability under a statute that prohibits violence “due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim’s gender.” And, again, Giuliani tried and failed to contest the applicability of this statute to the litigation at hand.

“The defendants argue that Ms. Dunphy failed to adequately plead gender-based animus,” Moyne goes on. “The defendants are wrong. The plaintiff’s claims in the amended complaint that she was subjected to non-consensual sexual intercourse and/or oral sex are sufficient to allege animus on the basis of gender. Rape and sexual assault are inherently dehumanizing violations of bodily autonomy, and ‘animus inheres where consent is absent.’ Because Ms. Dunphy explicitly alleges non-consensual sexual intercourse and oral sex, the animus requirement is satisfied at the pleading stage.”

The court also observes that the alleged “numerous misogynistic and degrading remarks made by Giuliani” against Dunphy provide “independent support for gender-based animus.”

Dunphy also sued under the state and New York City human rights laws. Here, Giuliani tried to claim the plaintiff was not entitled to those protections because she was not actually a New Yorker. Again, the judge was not having it.

“Ms. Dunphy alleges she was flown to New York, introduced to staff in New York, and performed substantial work (and suffered severe abuse) inside Giuliani’s Upper East Side apartment,” the order continues. “These allegations, and numerous others like them that are plead throughout the amended complaint, are more than sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus and impact in New York to survive a motion to dismiss.”

Notably, Dunphy also sued Giuliani’s eponymous businesses — adding reciprocal aiding and abetting claims into the litigation. Those claims also survived the defense motion to dismiss.

“The defendants ignore the fact that Giuliani could aid and abet the corporate defendants’ conduct, and they could aid and abet his,” Moyne goes on. “Ms. Dunphy alleges that Giuliani aided and abetted the Giuliani companies’ discriminatory conduct—specifically their failure to implement sexual harassment policies, lack of HR oversight, and condonation of his actions—and that the companies similarly aided and abetted Giuliani. An individual can be held liable for aiding and abetting an employer’s unlawful discrimination, even if the individual’s own actions served as the predicate.”

The order goes on to tersely reject an additional five arguments over various claims on which Dunphy seeks to make Giuliani and his businesses liable — keeping each claim alive for the plaintiff.