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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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