Lee v. Lyft Inc.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Lee v Lyft Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 03634
June 9, 2026
Appellate Division, First 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.
Michael Lee et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
Lyft Inc., Defendant-Respondent, Ryan Griffith, Defendant.
Decided and Entered: June 09, 2026
Index No. 153716/22|Appeal No. 6834|Case No. 2025-00600|
Before: Moulton, J.P., Friedman, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, Michael, JJ.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellants.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Dean L. Pillarella of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered December 30, 2024, which denied plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint against defendant Lyft, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court's prior dismissal of the complaint in its entirety as against Lyft pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) became final once plaintiffs failed to appeal the order of dismissal (see Isaly v Garde, 241 AD3d 1085, 1089 [1st Dept 2025], lv dismissed 45 NY3d 959 [2026]). While the complaint remained against a different party, the order dismissing the complaint as against Lyft was final (see Shah v 20 E. 64th St., LLC, 198 AD3d 23, 33 [1st Dept 2021]). Accordingly, there was no longer
any complaint against Lyft before the court to amend (see Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc. v Kadem Capital Mgt., 306 AD2d 155, 156 [1st Dept 2003]; cf. Favourite Ltd. v Cico, 42 NY3d 250, 257-258 [2024]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 9, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Lee v Lyft Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 03634
June 9, 2026
Appellate Division, First 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.
Michael Lee et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
Lyft Inc., Defendant-Respondent, Ryan Griffith, Defendant.
Decided and Entered: June 09, 2026
Index No. 153716/22|Appeal No. 6834|Case No. 2025-00600|
Before: Moulton, J.P., Friedman, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, Michael, JJ.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellants.
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York (Dean L. Pillarella of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Denise M. Dominguez, J.), entered December 30, 2024, which denied plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint against defendant Lyft, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court's prior dismissal of the complaint in its entirety as against Lyft pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) became final once plaintiffs failed to appeal the order of dismissal (see Isaly v Garde, 241 AD3d 1085, 1089 [1st Dept 2025], lv dismissed 45 NY3d 959 [2026]). While the complaint remained against a different party, the order dismissing the complaint as against Lyft was final (see Shah v 20 E. 64th St., LLC, 198 AD3d 23, 33 [1st Dept 2021]). Accordingly, there was no longer any complaint against Lyft before the court to amend (see Jeffrey L. Rosenberg & Assoc. v Kadem Capital Mgt., 306 AD2d 155, 156 [1st Dept 2003]; cf. Favourite Ltd. v Cico, 42 NY3d 250, 257-258 [2024]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 9, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.