The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos. Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 13-23; 34-41 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 46 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) 58-60 Upon the foregoing papers, plaintiff Nefia Williamson (plaintiff) moves in motion (mot.) sequence (seq.) one for an order, pursuant to CPLR 7503 (c), staying the arbitration demanded by defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter “Uber”) by letter dated July 29, 2021. Uber cross-moves, in mot. seq. two, for an order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings of this action during the pendency of the arbitration. Background On April 25, 2019, plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle driven by defendant Alfred Thorne (“Thorne”) when Thorne’s vehicle allegedly collided with the vehicle owned and operated by defendants Janet Alexander (“Alexander”) and Howard Adams (“Adams”) near Linden Boulevard and Malta Street in Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff alleges that she utilized the Uber application to connect with Thorne and that Uber was responsible for Thorne’s actions at the time of the accident. On April 13, 2021, plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the subject accident. On or around July 29, 2021, plaintiff received Uber’s Notice of Intention to Arbitrate by letter dated same (hereinafter “Arbitration Demand”). On August 16, 2021, plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking a stay of the arbitration. Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Arbitration In support of her motion to stay arbitration, plaintiff contends that the only portion of any alleged agreement between Uber and herself that has ever been provided to her is the snippet in Uber’s Arbitration Demand. As such, plaintiff contends that Uber fails to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement because Uber fails to describe when and how plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her claims against Uber or how Uber’s digital or clickwrap agreements were presented to plaintiff at the time of the purported agreement. Relying on the case of Ramos v. Uber Technologies. Inc. (60 Misc3d 422 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2018]), plaintiff argues that Uber fails to demonstrate that plaintiff unequivocally agreed to arbitrate her claims against Uber. In addition, plaintiff asserts that she should be afforded the opportunity to conduct discovery on this issue. Plaintiff also points out that the Arbitration Demand makes no mention of co-defendants, Alexander, Adams and Thorne and that arbitration should also be stayed for this reason as well. Uber’s Cross Motion to Compel In opposition to plaintiff’s motion and in support of its cross motion to compel arbitration, Uber argues that, on February 21, 2021, approximately two months before the filing of the instant action but after the date of incident, plaintiff consented to Uber’s January 18, 2021 Terms of Use (“January 2021 Terms”) which included a clear and unambiguous arbitration provision. Uber further contends that plaintiff’s personal injury claims fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration provision. In support, Uber proffers the affidavit of Ryan Buoscio (“Buoscio”), Senior Legal Manager of Program Operations and Insurance Litigation Analytics, who has been employed by Uber since 2016 (NYSCEF Doc No. 36, 2). Buoscio avers that Uber is a technology company that uses its proprietary technology to develop and maintain digital multi-sided platforms, one of which is the Rides platform (id. at
