Lewis v. Fly-E Group, Inc.

Lewis v Fly-E Group, Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 32494(U) July 14, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 158750/2023 Judge: Mary V. Rosado 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 07/14/2025 04:49 P~ INDEX NO. 158750/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice -----------X INDEX NO. 158750/2023 SASHA LEWIS, MOTION DATE 08/26/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -

FLY-E GROUP, INC.,FLY E- BIKE, CORP., FLY SKYE- BIKE 784 INC.,FLY SKYE-BIKE 99 INC.,FLY WINGE-BIKE DECISION + ORDER ON MYRTLE, INC.,FL YCYCLE INC.,ABC CORPORATIONS (1- 10)(FICTIOUS ENTITIES) MOTION

Defendant. -------------------------------------------------·------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 34, 35, 37, 38 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

Upon the foregoing documents, and after a final submission date of May 13, 2025,

Defendants Fly-E Group, Inc., Fly E-Bike Corp, and FlyCycle, Inc. (collectively "Fly E-Bike

Defendants") motion to dismiss Plaintiff Sasha Lewis' ("Plaintiff') Complaint pursuant to CPLR

321 l(a)(7) is granted in part and denied.

I. Background

Plaintiff alleges that on September 9, 2020, a rechargeable battery powered scooter

allegedly caused a fire in her apartment. She now sues the various named defendants for damages.

In motion sequence 002, this Court granted Plaintiff a default judgment on the issue of liability

with respect to non-appearing Defendants Fly Sky E-Bike 784 Inc., Fly Sky E0Bike 99 Inc., and

Fly Wing E-Bike Myrtle Inc. (collectively "Defaulting Defendants"). In this motion, the Fly-E

Bike Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to CPI ,R 3211 (a)(7) arguing

158750/2023 LEWIS, SASHA vs. FL Y-E GROUP, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 001

[* 1] 1 of 4

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2025 04:49 P~ INDEX NO. 158750/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2025

based on corporate filings they could not be responsible for the incident alleged in Plaintiffs

Complaint.

II. Discussion

When reviewing a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must

give Plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the pleadings and

determine only whether the alleged facts fit within any cognizable legal theory (Sassi v Mobile

Life Support Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236,239 [2021]. However, conclusory allegations or claims

consisting of bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity are insufficient to survive a motion

to dismiss (Godfrey v Spano, 13 NY3d 358, 373 [2009] Barnes v Hodge, 118 AD3d 633, 633-634

[1st Dept 2014]). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted if the factual

allegations do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery (Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican

Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d 137, 142 [2017]).

As this is a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the corporate filings submitted by the Fly E-Bike

Defendants, without more, are insufficient to conclusively negate Plaintiffs allegations. Although

the corporate filings state when the various Fly E-Bike Defendants ceased to exist or began

existing, they fail to explain the relationship amongst the various Fly E-Bike Defendants and

whether the various Fly E-Bike Defendants, or their successors or subsidiaries, designed,

manufactured, distributed, or sold components of the combusted scooter. The Fly E-Bike

Defendants' argument is more suited for a motion for summary judgment based on a more fully

developed record.

Accepting Plaintiffs allegations as true and giving Plaintiff the benefit of all favorable

inferences which may be drawn from her pleading, Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim against

the Fly E-Bike Defendants. The Fly E-Bike Defendants' argument that Plaintiff failed to plead she

158750/2023 LEWIS, SASHA vs. FLY-E GROUP, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2025 04:49 P~ INDEX NO. 158750/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2025

[FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/14/2025 04:49 PM] INDEX NO. 158750/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 41 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/14/2025

Footnotes

[2] of 4 [* 2] purchased the Wuxing scooter at issue is without merit, as Plaintiff alleges she purchased the scooter (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at 1 60) and she describes herself as the owner of the scooter (NYSCEF Doc. 1at116). Moreover, the Fly E-Bike Defendants' argument that Plaintiff failed to allege causation element is without merit as it can be inferred that when Plaintiff alleged that "a dangerous condition developed and ultimately a fire started" when she "was charging the Scooter in her apartment" she is alleging that a defective condition on the scooter's battery caused the fire. As repeatedly held by the Court of Appeals, "[t]he criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether [s]he has stated one" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994] quoting Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268 [1977]). In other words, although a complaint may be inartfully drafted, if the Court can infer from the factual allegations that a cause of action exists, the Complaint will withstand a motion to dismiss. Reading the Complaint liberally, and considering there has been no discovery, the Fly E-Bike Defendants' motion is denied. The Court has considered the remainder of the Fly E-Bike Defendants' arguments and finds them to be unavailing. The Fly E-Bike Defendants' arguments may be renewed on a future motion for summary judgment after some discovery has taken place. Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that Defendants Fly-E Group, Inc., Fly E-Bike Corp, and FlyCycle, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint is denied; and it is further ORDERED that within twenty days of entry, counsel for Defendants Fly-E Group, Inc., Fly E-Bike Corp, and FlyCycle, Inc. shall serve an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint; and it is further 158750/2023 LEWIS, SASHA vs. FLY-E GROUP, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001

[3] of 4 [* 3] ORDERED that the parties arc directed to meet and confer immediately and submit a proposed preliminary conference order to the Court via e-mail at SFC-Part33- Clerk@nycourts.gov, but in no event shall the proposed order be submitted any later than September 2, 2025; and it is further ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties via NYSCEF. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED x NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE 158750/2023 LEWIS, SASHA vs. FLY-E GROUP, INC. ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 001

[4] of 4 [* 4]