Louis v. Sood
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Louis v Sood
2026 NY Slip Op 04494
July 22, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Diana S. Louis, plaintiff, Johnye Louis, et al., respondents,
v
Parveen Sood, et al., defendants, Uber USA, LLC, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 22, 2026
2024-04409, (Index No. 516416/18)
Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.
Valerie Brathwaite Nelson
Barry E. Warhit
Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.
Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP (Perkins Coie LLP, New York, NY [Michael R. Huston, pro hac vice, Jacob Taber, and Jordan M. Buckwald, pro hac vice], of counsel), for appellants.
Gregory Spektor & Associates, P.C. (The Altman Law Firm, PLLC, Woodmere, NY [Michael T. Altman], of counsel), for respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Uber USA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-NY, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Francois A. Rivera, J.), dated January 25, 2024. The order denied those defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Uber USA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-NY, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred is granted.
In January 2018, a vehicle operated by the plaintiff Diana S. Louis, carrying the plaintiffs Johnye Louis and Wilhermine Louis as passengers, and a vehicle operated by the defendant Parveen Sood came into contact with one another, allegedly causing the plaintiffs to sustain serious personal injuries. Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced this action against Sood and another defendant, among other things, to recover damages for personal injuries. Discovery ensued, including Sood's deposition, where he testified, inter alia, that he may have been driving for "Uber" at the time of the accident and that he did not report the accident to "Uber."
In September 2021, the plaintiffs filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness for trial. In June 2022, counsel for the plaintiffs Johnye Louis and Wilhermine Louis (hereinafter together the Louis plaintiffs) contacted Uber Technologies, Inc., inter alia, to notify it of their claims. In April 2023, upon leave of the Supreme Court, the Louis plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, naming Uber USA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-NY, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (hereinafter collectively the Uber defendants), as additional defendants. Thereafter, the Uber defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred. In an order dated January 25, 2024, the court denied the motion. The Uber defendants appeal.
A defendant moving pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss a complaint on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations bears the initial burden of proving, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired (see Valdez v M.A. Angeliades, Inc., 222 AD3d 911, 912). Here, it is undisputed that the Uber defendants sustained their initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the amended complaint was filed outside the three-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 214[5]).
Consequently, the burden shifted to the Louis plaintiffs to present evidence raising a question of fact as to whether the relation-back doctrine applied (see Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d 173, 178; Valdez v M.A. Angeliades, Inc., 222 AD3d at 912). For claims against one defendant to relate back to claims asserted against another, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) that the new party is united in interest with the original defendant such that it may be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits, and (3) that the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the new defendant as well (see Matter of Nemeth v K-Tooling, 40 NY3d 405, 407-408; Buran v Coupal, 87 NY2d at 177-178; Valdez v M.A. Angeliades, Inc., 222 AD3d at 912-913). "The linchpin of the relation-back doctrine is whether the new defendant had notice within the applicable limitations period" (Norton v County of Westchester, 241 AD3d 833, 834 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see U.S. Bank N.A. v 1702 Dean, LLC, 240 AD3d 928, 931). Here, the Louis plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the relation-back doctrine applied inasmuch as they did not establish that the Uber defendants had knowledge of the claim or occurrence within the applicable limitations period (see Pirozzi v Garvin, 185 AD3d 848, 851; Flederbach v Fayman, 57 AD3d 474, 475). Moreover, they failed to establish that the Uber defendants knew or should have known that, but for a mistake as to the identity of the proper parties, this action would have been commenced against them as well (see Norton v County of Westchester, 241 AD3d at 834; Avila v Distinctive Dev. Co., LLC, 120 AD3d 449, 450).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the Uber defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them as time-barred.
The parties' remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination or are without merit.
CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Louis v. Sood (Louis v. Sood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.