Lee v. Lyft, Inc.

Lee v Lyft, Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 34526(U) December 18, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 153716/2022 Judge: Denise M. Dominguez Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2024 11: 14 AM! INDEX NO. 153716/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. DENISE M DOMINGUEZ PART 35M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 153716/2022 MICHAEL LEE, PAMELA LEE MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _00_2_ __ Plaintiff,

- V - DECISION+ ORDER ON LYFT, INC., RYAN GRIFFITH, MOTION

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,36,37,38,39 were read on this motion to/for AMEND CAPTIONIPLEADINGS

For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint is denied.

The incident that gives rise to this action occurred on October 29, 2021 when it is alleged

that Plaintiffs were verbally accosted, threatened, assaulted and/or improperly detained/confined

by Defendant RYAN GRIFFIN, the driver of their hired Lyft vehicle. (NYSCEF Doc. 1).

Plaintiffs commenced this action by the filing of the complaint on May 2, 2022. (NYSCEF

Doc. 1). Defendant L YFT, INC., "Lyft" answered on October 28, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. 5). Lyft

subsequently filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR §321 l(a)(7) (Seq. 1). Lyft's motion was

granted by Order (J. Latin) filed December 1, 2023 and entered on December 5, 2023 (NYSCEF

Doc. 25, 26). Although Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs did not seek to amend

the complaint while the motion to dismiss was pending.

The decision dismissing the complaint as against Lyft was final and duly entered as of

December 5, 2023. Plaintiffs did not seek to reargue, vacate or appeal the decision, and the time

to do so has expired. Plaintiffs now seek to amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR §3025, against

153716/2022 LEE, MICHAEL ET AL vs. LYFT, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 002

[* 1] 1 of 4

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2024 11:14 AMI INDEX NO. 153716/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2024

Lyft, who is no longer a party to this action, under the theory that amendments to pleadings are to

be freely granted at any time, and that such amendments arc permitted up to and even after trial.

Although the action itself was not completely disposed of, (the claims continued against

GRIFFIN), as the decision dismissing the complaint against Lyft disposed of all of the causes of

action against Lyft, the decision was final as to Lyft and should have been vacated or appealed

from timely. (See Roe-Le Triomphe Assoc.,·., LLC v. DeSouza, 220 N.Y.S.3d 28 [1st Dept 2024];

Geronimo v. Guzman, 216 A.D.3d 455 [1st Dept 2023]).

While leave to amend a pleading may be freely granted, Plaintiffs' reliance on Kimso

Apartments, LLC v. Gandhi, 24 N.Y.3d 403 (2014) is not persuasive as Kimso did not involve a

complaint that had been dismissed in its entirety against a defendant, but concerned a defendant's

application to conform his pleading to the proof submitted at trial. Plaintiffs' reliance on Donovan

v. Rothman, 253 A.D.2d 627 [1st Dept 1998] is unavailing as the plaintiff's motion to amend the

complaint in Donovan was timely made as a motion to vacate and reargue.

Lyft opposes the motion, arguing that as the complaint was dismissed, there is no pleading

before the Court for the court to amend. However, Lyft's reliance upon Tanner v. Stack, 176

A.D.3d 429 (1st Dept 2019) and Wadsworth Ave. Assocs. v. Maynard, 91 A.D.3d 452 1st Dept

2012) is not entirely analogous to the instant matter as, in Tanner and Wadsworth, the complaint

had in fact been discontinued in its entirety against all defendants. Here, although the complaint

was dismissed against Lyft, the complaint remained against GRIFFIN. Lyft also argues that the

complaint is essentially dismissed in its entirety, per CPLR §3215(c) as GRIFFIN did not appear

and as a motion for default against GRIFFIN was not pursued.

153716/2022 LEE, MICHAEL ET AL vs. LYFT, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002

[* 2] 2 of 4

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2024 11: 14 AM! INDEX NO. 153716/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2024

Upon review, neither party has presented this Court with a clear basis for either granting

or denying an application to amend the complaint under the present circumstances, against one of

several defendants who was previously dismissed from the action.

However, if this Court were to permit such an application procedurally, upon review,

Plaintiffs' motion is denied as Plaintiffs have shown that a viable cause of action against Lyft can

be alleged as proposed in the amended complaint.

Initially, it should be noted that the Order dismissing the action specifically found that

GRIFFIN's actions were beyond the scope of his employment and not in furtherance of Lyft's

business. (See Green v. Himon, 151 A.D.3d 516 [1st Dept 2017]). Thus, to the extent that the

proposed amended complaint seeks to reassert claims sounding in vicarious liability, Plaintiffs'

motion is denied. This Court will not now reinstate a cause of action which was duly dismissed on

the merits and for which the time to reargue, vacate or appeal has long expired.

As to the those claims sounding in negligent hiring, supervision, and/or training, which

were found to be not clearly pled as the complaint did not allege that Lyft knew, or should have

known, of any violent propensities of GRIFFIN, Plaintiffs seek to fix such deficiencies by now

setting forth purported specific instances of past violent propensities on the part of GRIFFIN.

Plaintiffs claim that Lyft should have become aware of such a history in doing a background check

on GRIFFIN at the time of hiring. Plaintiffs assert that such a history can be seen in criminal

complaints concerning GRIFFIN. (NYSCEF Doc. 32). However, no evidence has been submitted

that the "Ryan Griffin" identified in the submitted NYPD complaints is in fact Defendant

GRIFFIN. Additionally, the submitted documents are not certified and contain no verification from

someone with knowledge as to their authenticity. Moreover, the records, which purport to be

NYPD complaints, do not appear to reflect convictions. Thus, it is unclear to this Court whether

153716/2022 LEE, MICHAEL ET AL vs. LYFT, INC. ET AL Page 3 of4 Motion No. 002

[* 3] 3 of 4

!FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/30/2024 11: 14 AM! INDEX NO. 153716/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/30/2024

these complaints could have been located in a background check for GRIFFIN as Plaintiffs allege.

Finally, no explanation for why this supposed evidence of GRIFFIN's history of violent

propensities was not or could not have been disclosed while Lyft's motion to dismiss was pending,

or why it took four months after the motion was decided to disclose same. If the purported evidence

was only recently discovered, no reasonable explanation has been offered as to why it took so long

to identify. Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint as to the negligent

hiring, supervision, and/or training causes of action the motion is denied.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint is denied; and it is further ORDERED that this_ action remains dismissed as against Defendant L YFT, INC., and it is further ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining Defendant; and it is further ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the dismissal against Defendant L YFT, INC., and that all future papers filed with the court bear the amended caption; and it is further ORDERED that, within 20 days from the entry of this order, movant shall serve a copy of this order with notice of entry on all parties and upon the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office, who are directed to mark the court's records to reflect the change in the caption herein; and it is further ORDERED that such upon the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website)].

the Co~n:::u:::::/::::e:::/::::t addressed he~onet: 12/18/2024 DATE DENISE M DOMINGUEZ, J.S

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: . INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

153716/2022 LEE, MICHAEL ET AL vs. LYFT, INC. ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 002

[* 4] 4 of 4