The following numbered papers were read on this motion: Submitted by Defendant Lyft, Inc. in Support of Motion NYSCEF Doc No. 5: Notice of Motion NYSCEF Doc No. 6: Patricia Alarcon Demetri Affirmation in Support NYSCEF Doc No. 7: Exhibit A, Summons & Complaint NYSCEF Doc No. 8: Exhibit B, Lyft’s Answer NYSCEF Doc No. 9: Exhibit C, Kimberly Simmons Affirmation in Support NYSCEF Doc No. 10: Exhibit D, Lyft Terms of Service Consent History for Plaintiff NYSCEF Doc No. 11: Exhibit E, Lyft Terms of Service, 9/30/16 NYSCEF Doc No. 12: Exhibit F, Lyft Email to Plaintiff, 8/1/19 NYSCEF Doc No. 13: Exhibit G, Lyft Terms of Service, 8/26/19 NYSCEF Doc No. 14: Exhibit H, Lyft Email to Plaintiff, 12/14/20 NYSCEF Doc No. 15: Exhibit I, Lyft Terms of Service, 12/9/20 NYSCEF Doc No. 16: Exhibit J, Lyft Email to Plaintiff, 12/3/22 NYSCEF Doc No. 17: Exhibit K, Lyft Terms of Service, 12/12/22 NYSCEF Doc No. 18: Exhibit L, Brooks v. Uber Tech. NYSCEF Doc No. 19: Exhibit M, Weissman v. Revel Transit, Inc. NYSCEF Doc No. 20: Exhibit N, Wu v. Uber Tech. NYSCEF Doc No. 21: Exhibit O, Meija v. Linares. NYSCEF Doc No. 22: Exhibit P, Coladonato v. Lyft, Inc. NYSCEF Doc No. 23: Exhibit Q, Reyes v. Lyft, Inc. NYSCEF Doc No. 24: Exhibit R, Beauduy v. Siaka NYSCEF Doc No. 25: Exhibit S, Freeman v. MTM Fuel Servs., Inc. NYSCEF Doc No. 26: Exhibit T, Hinds v. American United Transp., Inc. NYSCEF Doc No. 27: Exhibit U, Calamuci v. Lyft, Inc. NYSCEF Doc No. 28: Exhibit V, Scarlett v. Thompson NYSCEF Doc No. 29: Exhibit W, Gayle v. LaKoretene NYSCEF Doc No. 30: Exhibit X, Garcia v. Yu NYSCEF Doc No. 31: Exhibit Y, Johnson v. N.Y. City Trans. Auth. NYSCEF Doc No. 32: Exhibit Z, Jackson v. Lyft, Inc. NYSCEF Doc No. 33: Exhibit AA, Riddell v. Hossain NYSCEF Doc No. 34: Exhibit BB, Meet & Confer Letter to Plaintiff’s Counsel NYSCEF Doc No. 35: Statement of Authorization for Electronic Filing NYSCEF Doc No. 36: Request for Judicial Intervention Filed by Court NYSCEF Doc No. 39: Interim Order, Motion to be Determined on Submission No documents were submitted by Plaintiff in opposition to the motion. ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, and the Court having elected to determine the within motion on submission pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.8-f and IAS Part 2 Rules, Part II (Motions & Special Proceedings), Subpart C (Appearances & Post-Order Matters)), §6 (Personal Appearances) (“All motions presumptively are to be argued in person unless the Court informs the parties at least two days in advance that it has made a sua sponte determination that a motion will be determined on submission. These instances will be rare. If a party (movant or opposition) does not want a motion determined on submission, it shall so indicate to the right of the caption in the notice of motion.),” and due deliberation having been had thereon, the within motion is determined as follows. INTRODUCTION This is an action commenced by Plaintiff Franklin Berroa (“Plaintiff” or “Berroa”), seeking to recover damages for alleged personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle on July 20, 2020 (“the accident”). Berroa used the Lyft platform to arrange a ride with Defendant Ravshan I. Nasimov (“Nasimov”) and was a passenger in Defendant Nasimov’s vehicle when the accident occurred (see NYSCEF Doc No. 7, complaint
22, 24, 25, 31, 33). In addition to bringing claims against Nasimov, Berroa sued Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) for vicarious liability due to Nasimov’s alleged negligent operation of his vehicle while in his capacity as a driver for Lyft (see id.
