Ledain v. Uber USA

Ledain v Uber USA 2025 NY Slip Op 30741(U) March 3, 2025 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 526169/2021 Judge: Richard Velasquez 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: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2025 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 526169/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2025

At an IAS Term , Part 66 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the 3th day of March , 2025. PRESE NT: HON. RICHARD VELASQ UEZ Justice. ------------------------------------------------------------------X LEDAIN ET AL. ,

Petitioner, Index No. : 526169/2021 -against- Decision and Order Mot. Seq . No.2 UBER USA ET AL Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following papers numbered 31 to 39 read on this motion : Papers NYSCEF Doc No.'s

Notice of Motion/Cross-Motion/Order to Show Cause Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 31-33 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 34-37 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 39

After oral argument and a review of the submissions herein , the Court finds as follows : Plaintiff moves , pursuant to CPLR § 2221 (e) , for an order granting Plaintiffs leave

to renew this Court's decision dated July 20, 2022 , and denying Defendants' application

to stay proceedings pending completion of arbitration . Defendant Uber USA et al.

hereinafter "UBER" opposes the same .

ANALYS IS

CPLR 2221 in pertinent part states: "(d) A motion for leave to reargue : 1. shall be

identified specifically as such; 2. shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly [* 1] 1 of 4

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2025 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 526169/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2025

overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not

include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion; and 3. shall be made within

thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written

notice of its entry. CPLR 2221(d)(2) articulates the standards previously outlined in the

caselaw. A motion to reargue, it says: "shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly

overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion but shall not

include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion. CPLR 2221.

Under the caselaw existing prior to the 1999 amendments, a motion for re-

argument was often used when there was a change in the law after the prior order. CPLR

2221 (e)(2) now clarifies that the motion to renew, not the motion to reargue, is the proper

expedient when the motion is based on a change in the law that occurs while the case is

still subjudice, such as a new statute taking effect or a definitive ruling on a relevant point

of law being handed down by an appellate court that is entitled to stare decisis. See

Siegel, New York Practice 449 (4th ed . 2005). The distinction, made clear in the caselaw

and now embodied in the statute, is that the motion to renew involves new proof while the

motion to reargue does not; it merely seeks to convince the court that it overlooked or

misapprehended something the first time around and ought to change its mind. NY CPLR

2221 . Additionally, A court has inherent discretionary power to vacate an order or

judgment in the interests of substantial justice. See Woodson v. Mendon Leasing Corp. ,

100 NY2d 62, 760 NYS2d 727, 790 NE2d 1156 (2003).

CPLR § 2221 (e) provides in relevant part that "[a] motion for leave to renew .. .

shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior

2 [* 2] 2 of 4

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2025 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 526169/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2025

determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would

change the prior determ ination " and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure

to present such facts on the prior motion. " The Second Department has consistently ruled

that "[t]he Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits

a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion ." Sobin

v Tylutki, 59 AD3d 701 [2d Dep't 2009] ; Worrell v Parkway Estates, LLC, 43 AD3d 436

[2d Dep't 2007]. In the present case , Plaintiffs could not have presented the Castro v

Jem Leasing, LLC, et al. , 2023 NY Slip Op. 01255 ; decision in opposition to Defendants'

order to show cause, because it was issued nine months after this Courts order was

issued . On March 14, 2023, the Appellate Division, First Department in Castro,

unanimously affirmed a Bronx trial judge's denial of Uber's motion to stay litigation

pending arbitration. The Court held that Uber failed to sustain its burden of showing that

the parties had an explicit and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate. It noted that Uber

failed to establish (1) that the plaintiff agreed to be bound by any arbitration agreement

when she registered for the rider app; (2) that the Uber app constituted a valid clickwrap

agreement putting plaintiff on inquiry notice of contract terms, including the arbitration

agreement; and (3) that plaintiff assented to any such agreement. Id.

In the present case, plaintiff has pointed out the court overlooked that defendant

offered no evidence of the existence of an arbitration agreement with Plaintiffs and

misapplied the applicable law . Th is Court agrees. In the present case defendant Uber

provide no evidence of an arbitration agreement with plaintiffs . Defendant's UBER, failed

to include any agreement at all to their orig inal motion papers. In the present case, just

3 [* 3] 3 of 4

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2025 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 526169/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2025

like the Castro case the defendants wholly failed to establish through admissible evidence

that any arbitration agreement existed between Defendants and Plaintiffs.

Accordingly , Petitioners request to reargue is granted and upon reargument this

Court modifies the order dated July 20, 2022 to read as follows: Defendant UBER's order

to show cause to stay this action pending arbitration is hereby denied , for the reasons

stated above.

This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

Date: MARCH 3, 2025 ENTER FORTHWITH :

tlVt{ RICHAR~QUEZ, J.S .C.

Hon. Richard Velasquez, JSC

NAR O3 2025

4 [* 4] 4 of 4