79
Credit score: lev radin/Shutterstock
Leah McSweeney wrote a cryptic put up saying she “ruined” Actual Housewives of New York. In the meantime, she reportedly resolved a federal tax lien that stemmed from her time on the present.
Leah began RHONY in 2020 for season 12, and returned the following yr for season 13. After her sophomore season, the forged was completely rebooted. Lately, Leah sued Bravo and Andy Cohen, claiming they discriminated in opposition to her. In keeping with the star, she was pressured to drink regardless of letting them know she was sober. At BravoCon 2025, Andy shut down a rumor that authentic castmates would return subsequent season.
After Andy’s assertion, Leah wrote a put up on Instagram.
“Only a baddie that ruined your favourite franchise 🖤,” she stated in a caption. The star additionally posted a photograph of herself on all fours in a limo.
Across the identical time, Us Weekly reported that Leah resolved her tax scenario.
On March 11, the IRS in New York reportedly filed a federal tax lien accusing Leah of owing $20,437.45 for 2022, $30,017.51 for 2021 and $23,544.04 for 2018 – totaling $73,999. The lien demanded that Leah pay in whole.
Leah’s spokesperson instructed the outlet that she resolved the difficulty.
In keeping with TMZ, the present paid Leah $3,000 per episode throughout her freshman season, however she demanded an even bigger paycheck the yr after. Per Web page Six, she earned $10,000 per episode, following negotiations.
Leah is reportedly nonetheless battling Bravo and Andy Cohen in courtroom.
Again in Might, The U.S. Solar obtained courtroom docs claiming that Andy enlisted 24 Bravolebs to smear her after the lawsuit.
“[Andy] directed and/or induced no less than twenty-four (24) Defendant Bravo present and former forged members to publicly allege forged dispersion on Plaintiff’s employment fame whereas lauding [Andy],” stated Leah within the paperwork. “The amended Aiding and Abetting Claims allege further info to plausibly allege that the Defendant Producers participated in Defendant Cohen’s and the Defendant Firms’ (collectively ‘Defendant Employers’) discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, did so with a neighborhood of objective with the Defendant Employers, didn’t remediate and/or examine Plaintiff’s complaints of discriminatory and retaliatory conduct all through her employment.”
“[Andy] engaged in a coordinated, multi-faceted retaliatory marketing campaign in opposition to [her],” the doc continued, “after [she] filed her Criticism in opposition to [him].”
