The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 92 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In October 2023, plaintiff Chirag Choudhary commenced this action against defendants Kathleen Dorr, Thomas Dorr, and Jaclyn Dorr, asserting causes of action for a violation of New York Civil Rights Law §79-n (2), harassment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, conspiracy, and false imprisonment. In Motion Sequence 002, defendants have moved to dismiss in lieu of an answer pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(7), and (g). Plaintiff opposes the motion in its entirety. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted in part. BACKGROUND This action arises out of a particularly acrimonious breakup and two-year-long custody battle in New York Family Court between plaintiff Chaudhary and non-party Jamie Dorr, during which — according to plaintiff — Jamie’s mother (Kathleen), father (Thomas), and sister (Jaclyn) allegedly made false reports/statements to police and the court as part of a harassment campaign against him. In or around 2017, plaintiff, a Hindu American of South Asian descent, entered into a relationship with Jamie, who, along with her family, is white and Roman Catholic. Thereafter, Jamie Dorr became pregnant with their first child and gave birth to “CC” on June 24, 2018. (NYSCEF doc. no. 74 at 61, amended complaint.) Plaintiff and Jamie were to have their wedding ceremony on May 16, 2021. (Id. at 67.) However, for disputed reasons, the wedding was cancelled the day of. (See id. at 264; NYSCEF doc. no. 44 at
50-55, defendants’ statement of material facts.) In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that Kathleen, Thomas, and Jaclyn Dorr expressed animosity towards him and his extended family based upon race, religion, and ethnicity, for example, by using racial slurs/disparagements towards him and CC, by refusing to welcome or socialize with plaintiff’s family in New York or hold the planned wedding in Jamaica, and by allegedly telling members of his wedding party “You f — Indians go back home” (NYSCEF doc. no. 74 at 266) and calling them “frauds and killers” (Id. at
