Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BRONX
_______________________________________________X
NICOLE SOARES,
Plaintiff, Index #: 30914/2017E
-against- NOTICE OF APPEAL
NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV, UBER
TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and
UBER USA, LLC,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the plaintiff NICOLE SOARES, hereby appeal(s) to the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department
from an order entered in this case in the office of the Clerk of Bronx County on the 7th day of
May, 2024, which order granted the Defendants’ UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY
LLC and UBER USA, LLC, motion for summary judgment and this appeal is taken from
each and every part of that document as well as from the whole thereof.
Dated: Melville, New York
May 7, 2024 Yours, etc.
ZLOTOLOW & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: Jason Firestein, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
58 S. Service Road, Suite 130
Melville, New York 11747
(631) 396-7400
JFirestein@zlotlawyers.com
To: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
Attorneys for Defendants UBER
TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and
UBER USA, LLC
1133 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604
(914) 323- 7000
1 of 13
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
Law Offices of Nancy Isserlis
Attorneys for Defendant
NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV
36-01 43rd Avenue
Long Island City, NY 11101
(718) 361-1514
File: B-69587
2 of 13
FILED:
FILED : BRONX
BRONX COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/07/2024
05/07/2024 01:54
01:34 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 30914/2017E
30914/2017E
PN|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 131
129 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
05/07/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BRONX
X
NICOLE SOARES,
Plaintiff, Index #: 30914/2017E
-against- ORDER WITH NOTICE
OF ENTRY
NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV, UBER
TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and
UBER USA, LLC,
Defendants.
X
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached is a true copy of an order in this matter that
7th
was entered in the office of the County Clerk of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, on the
day of May, 2024.
Dated: Melville, New York
May 7, 2024
Yours, etc.
LOTOLOW & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: Jason Firestein, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
58 S. Service Road, Suite 130
Melville, New York 11747
(631) 396-7400
JFirestein@zlotlawyers.com
To: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
Attorneys for Defendants UBER
TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and
UBER USA, LLC
1133 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604
323- 7000
(914)
31 of
of 13
5
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
4 of 13
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
W
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131
MIPMEl®CtMRT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
COUNTY OF BRONX, PART 13
..----------___________________-_____________________________-______x
Index N9. 30914/2017E
NICOLE SOARES
Plaintiff(s),
-against- Hon. PATSY GOULDBORNE,
NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV, UBER Justice of the Supreme Court
TECHNOLOGIES INC. RAISIER-NY, LLC and
UBER USA, LLC.
Defendant(s).
_________________________-_________________________________________Ç
The following papers were read on this motion (Seq No.3) for SUMMARY JUDGMENT submitted on May 26,
2023.
Notice of Motion - Affirmation and Exhibits NYSCEF Doc. # 69-100
Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits NYSCEF Doc. # 102-126
Affirmation in Reply NYSCEF Doc. # 127
Upon the foregoing papers, the Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser-NY, LLC and Uber USA,
LLC (collectively, "Uber") move for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), dismissing the Second
co-defendants'
Amended complaint and crosselaims asserted against Uber. The Plaintiff Nicole Soares
("Plaintiff") opposes the motion.
Plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover for injuries she allegedly sustained on June 24, 2017 at
approximately 6:55 AM, when a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Najibullo Rahmatulloev
("Rahmatulloev") allegedly struck plaintiff, a pedestrian, as Rahmatulloev was parking his vehicle at or near
39th
245 East street in New York, New York. Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the accident Rahmatulloev was
acting as an employee of Uber, making Uber vicariously liable for his alleged negligence.
In support of the motion, Uber submits, inter alia, an affidavit of Todd Gaddis, data science manager for
Uber since 2014. Mr. Gaddis explains that in order for an Uber driver to accept ride requests from Uber users,
App" "open"
the driver must first be logged into Uber's "Driver and in status. Mr. Gaddis further explains that
Uber captures, records, tracks, and maintains data from each driver's use of the Driver App. In addition Mr.
Gaddis states that he personally searched and reviewed Uber's electronically stored business records referenced
"open"
above showing when drivers are logged in and in the Driver App and corresponding GPS points to show
"open"
where drivers are located when they are in the App. Mr. Gaddis states that he "searched for electronic
business records based on Rahmatulloev's full name, home address, driver's license, license plate, and VIN
number for the vehicle he was operating at the time of the Subject Accident. Mr. Gaddis determined that
"offline"
"Rahmatulloev logged in the Driver App at approximately 6:48 A.M. on June 24, 2017 at the
"
following GPS points: 40.75343704223633 (latitude), -73.974609375 (longitude). Rahmatulloev became
"open"
in the Driver App at approximately 7:37 A.M. on June 24, 2017 at the following GPS points:
40.749725341796875 (latitude), -73.9752197265625 (longitude). Uber submits supporting documentation along
Gaddis'
with Mr. affidavit.
According to Mr. Gaddis, the relevant account was offline and not able to accept rider requests at the
time of the accident. In addition, Defendant Rahmatulloev's location when he was offline is a different location
as to where the accident occurred. Uber asserts that it cannot be held liable here since Rahmatulloev was not
1
53 of
ef 13
8
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
driving the vehicle in the course of any alleged employment with Uber when the accident occurred. Uber further
asserts that it did not own the Rahmatulloev's vehicle, therefore it cannot be held liable under the theory of
negligent entrustment or negligent maintenance, or pursuant to VTL §388.
"offline"
Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that even assuming Rahmatulloev was at the time of the accident,
Uber's records show that he was online and picked up and dropped off fares that day both before and after the
accident occurred. Plaintiff contends that Rahmatulloev's decision to briefly take a pause from working to park
in Manhattan was nothing more than a routine and foreseeable part of his work day, and did not stop him from
working for Uber at the moment of the accident.
Discussion
The proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of submitting evidence in admissible form
demonstrating the absence of any triable issues of fact and establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law
(Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72 [2003].; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986] ; Winegrad v
New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). The failure to make a prima facie showing requires
denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of any opposing papers ( Winegrad, 64 NY2d at 853). Once a
movant meets the initial burden, the burden shifts to the opponent, who must the produce sufficient evidence, also
in admissible form, to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact. (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d
557 [1980]). Lastly, because summary judgment is such a drastic remedy, it should never be granted when there
is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue of fact. (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY 2d 223 [1978]).
When the existence of an issue of fact is even debatable, summary judgment should be denied. (Stone v Goodson,
8 NY2d 8 [1960]). In the instant matter, as indicated above Uber has submitted documentation demonstrating
that Rahmatulloev was not engaged in any work connected to or on behalf of Uber when the accident occurred,
shifting the burden to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence demonstrating that the Defendant Rahmatulloev was engaged
in work connected to or on behalf of Uber at the time of the accident as alleged in Plaintiff's filings and
submissions. The testimony of Defendant Rahmattulloev demonstrates, amongst other things, that he could not
recall whether the Uber app was on or off at the time of the accident.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Uber's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Second Amended
co-defendants'
complaint and crosselaims is granted.
ORDERED that the Defendant Uber shall serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry upon all parties
withing thirty days of the upload of this Order in NYSCEF.
ORDERED that the Clerk shall mark the motion (Seq. No. 3) disposed of in all court records.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: April 30, 2024 Hon.
PATSY GOULDBORNE, J.S.C.
6 of 13
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
7 of 13
FILED:
FILED : BRONX
BRONX COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/07/2024
05/07/2024 01:54
01: 41 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 30914/2017E
30914/2017E
PN|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 131
130 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
05/07/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BRONX
X
NICOLE SOARES,
Plaintiff, Index #: 30914/2017E
-against- AFFIRMATION OF
SERVICE
NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV, UBER
TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and
UBER USA, LLC,
Defendants.
X
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
JASON FIRESTEIN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am not a party to this action, am over the age of 18 years and reside in the County of Nassau, State of New
York. On May 7, 2024, I served the within ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY by depositing a true copy
thereof enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the U.S.
Postal Service with New York State, addressed to each of the following persons at the last known address set forth
after each name:
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker
Attorneysfor Defendants UBER
TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and
UBER USA, LLC
1133 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604
323- 7000
(914)
Law Offices of Nancy Isserlis
Attorneysfor Defendant
NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV
36-01 43rd Avenue
LongIsland City, NY 11101
(718) 361-1514
7nd
I affirm this day of May, 2024, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of the State of New York, which
may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in
an action or proceeding in a court of law.
JASON FIRESTEIN
81 of
of 13
1
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
Informational Statement (Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]) - Civil
Case Title: Set forth the title of the case as it appears on the summons, notice of petition or order to For Court of Original Instance
show cause by which the matter was or is to be commenced, or as amended.
Date Notice of Appeal Filed
- against -
For Appellate Division
Case Type Filing Type
Civil Action CPLR article 78 Proceeding Appeal Transferred Proceeding
CPLR article 75 Arbitration Special Proceeding Other Original Proceedings CPLR Article 78
CPLR Article 78 Executive Law § 298
Habeas Corpus Proceeding
Eminent Domain CPLR 5704 Review
Labor Law 220 or 220-b
Public Officers Law § 36
Real Property Tax Law § 1278
Nature of Suit: Check up to of the following categories which best reflect the nature of the case.
Administrative Review Business Relationships Commercial Contracts
Declaratory Judgment Domestic Relations Election Law Estate Matters
Family Court Mortgage Foreclosure Miscellaneous Prisoner Discipline & Parole
Real Property Statutory Taxation Torts
(other than foreclosure)
9 of 13
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
Appeal
Paper Appealed From (Check one only): If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or
judgment by the filing of this notice of appeal, please
indicate the below information for each such order or
judgment appealed from on a separate sheet of paper.
Amended Decree Determination Order Resettled Order
Amended Judgement Finding Order & Judgment Ruling
Amended Order Interlocutory Decree Partial Decree Other (specify):
Decision Interlocutory Judgment Resettled Decree
Decree Judgment Resettled Judgment
Court: County:
Dated: Entered:
Judge (name in full): Index No.:
Stage: Interlocutory Final Post-Final Trial: Yes No If Yes: Jury Non-Jury
Prior Unperfected Appeal Information
Are any appeals arising in the same action or proceeding currently pending in the court? Yes No
If Yes, please set forth the Appellate Division Case Number assigned to each such appeal.
Where appropriate, indicate whether there is any related action or proceeding now in any court of this or any other
jurisdiction, and if so, the status of the case:
Original Proceeding
Commenced by: Order to Show Cause Notice of Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus Date Filed:
Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division:
Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g)
Court: County:
Judge (name in full): Order of Transfer Date:
CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order:
Court: County:
Judge (name in full): Dated:
Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues
Description: If an appeal, briefly describe the paper appealed from. If the appeal is from an order, specify the relief
requested and whether the motion was granted or denied. If an original proceeding commenced in this court or transferred
pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), briefly describe the object of proceeding. If an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the
nature of the ex parte order to be reviewed.
10 of 13
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
Issues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review
Party Information
Instructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an
appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this
form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party’s name and his, her, or its status in this
court.
No. Party Name Original Status Appellate Division Status
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
11 of 13
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
Attorney Information
Instructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the
notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division,
only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or
himself, the box marked “Pro Se” must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied
in the spaces provided.
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represente (set forth party number(s) from table above : 1
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above : 3,4,5
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above : 2
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above :
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above :
Attorney/Firm Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip: Telephone No:
E-mail Address:
Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice
Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above :
12 of 13
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BRONX
Index #: 30914/2017E
______________________________________________________________________________
NICOLE SOARES,
Plaintiff,
-against-
NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV, UBER
TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and
UBER USA, LLC,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF APPEAL
______________________________________________________________________________
ZLOTOLOW & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
58 S. Service Road, Suite 130
Melville, New York 11747
Tel: (631) 396-7400
13 of 13
Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX _______________________________________________X NICOLE SOARES, Plaintiff, Index #: 30914/2017E -against- NOTICE OF APPEAL NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV, UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and UBER USA, LLC, Defendants. _______________________________________________X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the plaintiff NICOLE SOARES, hereby appeal(s) to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department from an order entered in this case in the office of the Clerk of Bronx County on the 7th day of May, 2024, which order granted the Defendants’ UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and UBER USA, LLC, motion for summary judgment and this appeal is taken from each and every part of that document as well as from the whole thereof. Dated: Melville, New York May 7, 2024 Yours, etc. ZLOTOLOW & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Jason Firestein, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 58 S. Service Road, Suite 130 Melville, New York 11747 (631) 396-7400 JFirestein@zlotlawyers.com To: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and UBER USA, LLC 1133 Westchester Avenue White Plains, NY 10604 (914) 323- 7000 1 of 13 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 Law Offices of Nancy Isserlis Attorneys for Defendant NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV 36-01 43rd Avenue Long Island City, NY 11101 (718) 361-1514 File: B-69587 2 of 13 FILED: FILED : BRONX BRONX COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/07/2024 05/07/2024 01:54 01:34 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 30914/2017E 30914/2017E PN| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 131 129 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 05/07/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX X NICOLE SOARES, Plaintiff, Index #: 30914/2017E -against- ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV, UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and UBER USA, LLC, Defendants. X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached is a true copy of an order in this matter that 7th was entered in the office of the County Clerk of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, on the day of May, 2024. Dated: Melville, New York May 7, 2024 Yours, etc. LOTOLOW & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Jason Firestein, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 58 S. Service Road, Suite 130 Melville, New York 11747 (631) 396-7400 JFirestein@zlotlawyers.com To: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and UBER USA, LLC 1133 Westchester Avenue White Plains, NY 10604 323- 7000 (914) 31 of of 13 5 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 4 of 13 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E W NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 MIPMEl®CtMRT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 COUNTY OF BRONX, PART 13 ..----------___________________-_____________________________-______x Index N9. 30914/2017E NICOLE SOARES Plaintiff(s), -against- Hon. PATSY GOULDBORNE, NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV, UBER Justice of the Supreme Court TECHNOLOGIES INC. RAISIER-NY, LLC and UBER USA, LLC. Defendant(s). _________________________-_________________________________________Ç The following papers were read on this motion (Seq No.3) for SUMMARY JUDGMENT submitted on May 26, 2023. Notice of Motion - Affirmation and Exhibits NYSCEF Doc. # 69-100 Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits NYSCEF Doc. # 102-126 Affirmation in Reply NYSCEF Doc. # 127 Upon the foregoing papers, the Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser-NY, LLC and Uber USA, LLC (collectively, "Uber") move for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), dismissing the Second co-defendants' Amended complaint and crosselaims asserted against Uber. The Plaintiff Nicole Soares ("Plaintiff") opposes the motion. Plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover for injuries she allegedly sustained on June 24, 2017 at approximately 6:55 AM, when a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Najibullo Rahmatulloev ("Rahmatulloev") allegedly struck plaintiff, a pedestrian, as Rahmatulloev was parking his vehicle at or near 39th 245 East street in New York, New York. Plaintiff alleges that at the time of the accident Rahmatulloev was acting as an employee of Uber, making Uber vicariously liable for his alleged negligence. In support of the motion, Uber submits, inter alia, an affidavit of Todd Gaddis, data science manager for Uber since 2014. Mr. Gaddis explains that in order for an Uber driver to accept ride requests from Uber users, App" "open" the driver must first be logged into Uber's "Driver and in status. Mr. Gaddis further explains that Uber captures, records, tracks, and maintains data from each driver's use of the Driver App. In addition Mr. Gaddis states that he personally searched and reviewed Uber's electronically stored business records referenced "open" above showing when drivers are logged in and in the Driver App and corresponding GPS points to show "open" where drivers are located when they are in the App. Mr. Gaddis states that he "searched for electronic business records based on Rahmatulloev's full name, home address, driver's license, license plate, and VIN number for the vehicle he was operating at the time of the Subject Accident. Mr. Gaddis determined that "offline" "Rahmatulloev logged in the Driver App at approximately 6:48 A.M. on June 24, 2017 at the " following GPS points: 40.75343704223633 (latitude), -73.974609375 (longitude). Rahmatulloev became "open" in the Driver App at approximately 7:37 A.M. on June 24, 2017 at the following GPS points: 40.749725341796875 (latitude), -73.9752197265625 (longitude). Uber submits supporting documentation along Gaddis' with Mr. affidavit. According to Mr. Gaddis, the relevant account was offline and not able to accept rider requests at the time of the accident. In addition, Defendant Rahmatulloev's location when he was offline is a different location as to where the accident occurred. Uber asserts that it cannot be held liable here since Rahmatulloev was not 1 53 of ef 13 8 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 driving the vehicle in the course of any alleged employment with Uber when the accident occurred. Uber further asserts that it did not own the Rahmatulloev's vehicle, therefore it cannot be held liable under the theory of negligent entrustment or negligent maintenance, or pursuant to VTL §388. "offline" Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that even assuming Rahmatulloev was at the time of the accident, Uber's records show that he was online and picked up and dropped off fares that day both before and after the accident occurred. Plaintiff contends that Rahmatulloev's decision to briefly take a pause from working to park in Manhattan was nothing more than a routine and foreseeable part of his work day, and did not stop him from working for Uber at the moment of the accident. Discussion The proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of submitting evidence in admissible form demonstrating the absence of any triable issues of fact and establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72 [2003].; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986] ; Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). The failure to make a prima facie showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of any opposing papers ( Winegrad, 64 NY2d at 853). Once a movant meets the initial burden, the burden shifts to the opponent, who must the produce sufficient evidence, also in admissible form, to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact. (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Lastly, because summary judgment is such a drastic remedy, it should never be granted when there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue of fact. (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY 2d 223 [1978]). When the existence of an issue of fact is even debatable, summary judgment should be denied. (Stone v Goodson, 8 NY2d 8 [1960]). In the instant matter, as indicated above Uber has submitted documentation demonstrating that Rahmatulloev was not engaged in any work connected to or on behalf of Uber when the accident occurred, shifting the burden to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence demonstrating that the Defendant Rahmatulloev was engaged in work connected to or on behalf of Uber at the time of the accident as alleged in Plaintiff's filings and submissions. The testimony of Defendant Rahmattulloev demonstrates, amongst other things, that he could not recall whether the Uber app was on or off at the time of the accident. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Uber's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Second Amended co-defendants' complaint and crosselaims is granted. ORDERED that the Defendant Uber shall serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry upon all parties withing thirty days of the upload of this Order in NYSCEF. ORDERED that the Clerk shall mark the motion (Seq. No. 3) disposed of in all court records. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: April 30, 2024 Hon. PATSY GOULDBORNE, J.S.C. 6 of 13 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 7 of 13 FILED: FILED : BRONX BRONX COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/07/2024 05/07/2024 01:54 01: 41 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 30914/2017E 30914/2017E PN| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 131 130 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 05/07/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX X NICOLE SOARES, Plaintiff, Index #: 30914/2017E -against- AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV, UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and UBER USA, LLC, Defendants. X STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) JASON FIRESTEIN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am not a party to this action, am over the age of 18 years and reside in the County of Nassau, State of New York. On May 7, 2024, I served the within ORDER WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY by depositing a true copy thereof enclosed in a post-paid wrapper, in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the U.S. Postal Service with New York State, addressed to each of the following persons at the last known address set forth after each name: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker Attorneysfor Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and UBER USA, LLC 1133 Westchester Avenue White Plains, NY 10604 323- 7000 (914) Law Offices of Nancy Isserlis Attorneysfor Defendant NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV 36-01 43rd Avenue LongIsland City, NY 11101 (718) 361-1514 7nd I affirm this day of May, 2024, under the penalties of perjury under the laws of the State of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that the foregoing is true, and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or proceeding in a court of law. JASON FIRESTEIN 81 of of 13 1 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 Informational Statement (Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1250.3 [a]) - Civil Case Title: Set forth the title of the case as it appears on the summons, notice of petition or order to For Court of Original Instance show cause by which the matter was or is to be commenced, or as amended. Date Notice of Appeal Filed - against - For Appellate Division Case Type Filing Type Civil Action CPLR article 78 Proceeding Appeal Transferred Proceeding CPLR article 75 Arbitration Special Proceeding Other Original Proceedings CPLR Article 78 CPLR Article 78 Executive Law § 298 Habeas Corpus Proceeding Eminent Domain CPLR 5704 Review Labor Law 220 or 220-b Public Officers Law § 36 Real Property Tax Law § 1278 Nature of Suit: Check up to of the following categories which best reflect the nature of the case. Administrative Review Business Relationships Commercial Contracts Declaratory Judgment Domestic Relations Election Law Estate Matters Family Court Mortgage Foreclosure Miscellaneous Prisoner Discipline & Parole Real Property Statutory Taxation Torts (other than foreclosure) 9 of 13 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 Appeal Paper Appealed From (Check one only): If an appeal has been taken from more than one order or judgment by the filing of this notice of appeal, please indicate the below information for each such order or judgment appealed from on a separate sheet of paper. Amended Decree Determination Order Resettled Order Amended Judgement Finding Order & Judgment Ruling Amended Order Interlocutory Decree Partial Decree Other (specify): Decision Interlocutory Judgment Resettled Decree Decree Judgment Resettled Judgment Court: County: Dated: Entered: Judge (name in full): Index No.: Stage: Interlocutory Final Post-Final Trial: Yes No If Yes: Jury Non-Jury Prior Unperfected Appeal Information Are any appeals arising in the same action or proceeding currently pending in the court? Yes No If Yes, please set forth the Appellate Division Case Number assigned to each such appeal. Where appropriate, indicate whether there is any related action or proceeding now in any court of this or any other jurisdiction, and if so, the status of the case: Original Proceeding Commenced by: Order to Show Cause Notice of Petition Writ of Habeas Corpus Date Filed: Statute authorizing commencement of proceeding in the Appellate Division: Proceeding Transferred Pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) Court: County: Judge (name in full): Order of Transfer Date: CPLR 5704 Review of Ex Parte Order: Court: County: Judge (name in full): Dated: Description of Appeal, Proceeding or Application and Statement of Issues Description: If an appeal, briefly describe the paper appealed from. If the appeal is from an order, specify the relief requested and whether the motion was granted or denied. If an original proceeding commenced in this court or transferred pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), briefly describe the object of proceeding. If an application under CPLR 5704, briefly describe the nature of the ex parte order to be reviewed. 10 of 13 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 Issues: Specify the issues proposed to be raised on the appeal, proceeding, or application for CPLR 5704 review Party Information Instructions: Fill in the name of each party to the action or proceeding, one name per line. If this form is to be filed for an appeal, indicate the status of the party in the court of original instance and his, her, or its status in this court, if any. If this form is to be filed for a proceeding commenced in this court, fill in only the party’s name and his, her, or its status in this court. No. Party Name Original Status Appellate Division Status 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 of 13 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 Attorney Information Instructions: Fill in the names of the attorneys or firms for the respective parties. If this form is to be filed with the notice of petition or order to show cause by which a special proceeding is to be commenced in the Appellate Division, only the name of the attorney for the petitioner need be provided. In the event that a litigant represents herself or himself, the box marked “Pro Se” must be checked and the appropriate information for that litigant must be supplied in the spaces provided. Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represente (set forth party number(s) from table above : 1 Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above : 3,4,5 Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above : 2 Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above : Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above : Attorney/Firm Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone No: E-mail Address: Attorney Type: Retained Assigned Government Pro Se Pro Hac Vice Party or Parties Represented (set forth party number(s) from table above : 12 of 13 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2024 01:54 PM INDEX NO. 30914/2017E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 131 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/08/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX Index #: 30914/2017E ______________________________________________________________________________ NICOLE SOARES, Plaintiff, -against- NAJIBULLO RAHMATULLOEV, UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER-NY LLC and UBER USA, LLC, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF APPEAL ______________________________________________________________________________ ZLOTOLOW & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 58 S. Service Road, Suite 130 Melville, New York 11747 Tel: (631) 396-7400 13 of 13