Boerum v Charles

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Boerum v Charles 2022 NY Slip Op 32900(U) August 19, 2022 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: No. 510368/20 Judge: Larry D. Martin Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 510368/2020 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/25/2022 04:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2022 .:1_l_ At an IAS Term, Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New Yark held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at 3 60 Adams St"'sftaa:~°roklp~LYork, ~;O~;~ P R ES EN T : Larry D, Martin, J.S.C ---- -.. -- ... ----· -·. --- ·-... ___________________ .. ___ _ ___ ......... .--------· .. CHRISTOPHERBOERUM and LORAlNEBOERUM, No. 510368/20 Plaintiffs, ~against"'" TERRY JEAN CHARLES, RASIER LLC, RASIER CA LLC, and "JOHN DOE,'' name being fictitious; identity DECISION & ORDER MotionNo. 002 presently unknown, Defendanf5•. ...... . . - .---. ---- ........ .. ---------· . ----------------- ·--· --,------------- JORGE GUEVARA~SANCHEZ, Plaint(fj; -against,TERRY JEANCHARLES, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC, RASlER-NY; LLC, CHRISTOPHER J. BOERUM, and JOHN DOE (name being fictitious and Ui1known), Defendants. This case arises from a three-car accident in Janumy 2020. Plaintiff Jorge Guevara- Sanchez was a passenger ("Uber Passenger") in the vehicle driven by Defendant Tieny Jean Charles ("Uber Di"iver"}, when another vehicle, operated by ''John Doe," made an unsafe lane change, . striking Uber Driver;s vehicle cau$ing it to hit Plaintiff Christopher Boerum's vehicle cal'rying his wife, Loraine Boerum (the "Boerums'} Doe fled the scene. I. In June 2020, Boerums .brought the above-captioned action against Rasier LLC, Ra$ier CA LLC (alleged subsidiaries of Uber); Uber Driver, and Johi1 Doe alleging serious personal injuries. 1 i [* 1] .~eeSummons & Com pl,, Doc. No. I. 1 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/25/2022 04:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 INDEX NO. 510368/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2022 Charging the same, in January 2021, Uber Passenger sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier- NY; LLC (together, "Uber"), Uber Driver, Mr. Boertim, and John Doe als:o in this Court. See Guevara~Sanchez v. Charles, No. 500333/21 (''Uher Pm;senger Case'} ln October 2021, Ubef Passenger amended his Complaint to allege that, by func,tion of having used the rider version of theUber App {the"Rider App'') to coniiect with Uber Driver; Uber is responsible for Uber Driver 1 s ilegligence. 2 Uber rebuts that Uber Passenger's claims were improperly brought in this Court since, when tlber Passenger created an accoi.mt on the Rider App, Uber Passeriger consented to its terms and conditions which included an arbitration clause ("Arbitration Agreement"). Thus, in January of this year, Uber sent Uber Passenger notice of intention to arbitrate, 3 See CPLR 7503{c) ("A party may serve upon another patty a demand for arbitration Cir a notice of intention to arbitrate"). Itis undisputed that Uber Passenger did not object within 20 days as required to stay arbitration. Id. ("An application to stay arbitration must be made by the party served within twenty days after service upon him of the notice or demand, or he shall be so precluded:"). In Febrnary, after Uber Passenger tefused to discontinue his ·suit, Uber filed and duly served a demand for arbitration with the American Arbittatioh Association ("AAA") (the "Demand"). 4 AAA initiated arbitration within the month. 5 Aftet Uber Passenger Case was consolidated with this one, 6 in March, concerned that by engaging in discovery in this case, Ubenisks waiving its right to arbitrate Uber Passenger's claims,_ Uber moved to conipel arbitration of Uber Passenger's claims. 7 See CPLR 7503(a) {''A party aggrieved by the failure of another to arbitrate tnay ·apply for an Otder compelling arbitration.). UberPassengerha_s not opposed, but the Boetums, though not alleged to be party to the Arbitration Agreement, object on the grounds that severance. of Ober Passenger Case would prejudice them by delaying and requiring duplicative discovery. 8 Uber's applfoation to compel arbitration of Uber Passenger's claims is now before this Comt. 2 See Uber Passenger Case, Amended Comp!., Doc. No. 30. 3 See Ex. D, Notice of Intention to Arbitrate; Dot. No. 39. 4 See Ex. G; Doc.No. 42. 5 See Ex. H, Doc. No. 43. 6 See Consolidation Order, Doc. No. 32, 7 See Order to Show Cause; Doc. No. 44. 8 The Boerums also unavailingly argue that, by failing to raise this issue when Uber Driver inoved t6 consolidate, see Motion No. 001,-Doc. Nos. 21...:_29, resji1dicata bars raising it now. Asa matter of law, the docttine's application 1'_equires ''a final disposition on the 111erits" in the prior suit. Shelley v. Silvestre, 6p AD3d 992, 993 (2d Dept 2009). [* 2] 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 510368/2020 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/25/2022 04:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2022 II. Since, Uber Passenger does not opposeUber's application, and is, in any event, barred from objecting now under CPLR 7503(c}, this Comt addresses only the Boerutns:' argumentagainst staying this case pending arbitration of Uber Passenger's claims. See Matterof Steck (State Farm Ins. Co.); 89 NY2d 1082, 1084 (1996) ("CPLR 7503(c) requires a party , .. to move to stay such arbitration within 20 days ofsei-vice of such demand, else he bt she is precluded fr0111 objecting.'} At the outset, notably, arbitration "is a favored method of dispute resolution in New York." New Brwfswick TheologicalSeminary v. Vein Dyke, 184 AD3d 176, 178 (2d Dept 2020). Likewise, nationally. See Nitro-L(ftTechs., L.L.C. v. Howard, 568 US 17,20 (2012) (Federal Arbitration Act declares a national policy favoring arbitration); 9 USC § 2. Thus, as here; "[w]here there is no substantial question whethet a valid agreenient was made ot complied with ... the court shall direct the parties to arbitrate." CPLR 7503(a). "Once a valid arbitration agreement is identified, an arbitration ,should only be stayed 'when the sole matter soughtto be submitted to arbitration is clearly beyond the arbitrator's powec'" Pr:otostorm, Inc. v. Foley & Lardner LLP; 193 AD3d 486, 486 (1st Dept 2021) (quoting Silverman v. Benmor Coats, Inc., 61 NY2d 299, 309 {1984) (emphasis added):· Moreover, as this Department has repeatedly held, "where arbitrable and noharbitrable claims are inextricably interwoven, the proper course .is to stay judicial proceedings pending cornpletionof the arbitration, particularly where the determihatioh of issues in arbittation may well dispose of nonarbitrnble matters." See e.g., Lake Harbor Advisors, LLC v. Settle. Services Arb. andAfedhition, Inc., 175 ADJd 479,480 (2d Dept2019); Weiss v. Nath, 97 AD3d 661,663 (2d Dept 2012); Anderson Sr. Realty Corp. v, Ntrw Rochelle Revitalization, LLC, 78 AD3d 972, 975 (2d Dept2010). Here, there is one event-a three-car accident-from which·all the instantissues arise, It is therefore likely that the detenrtitmtion of issues in arbitration may well dispose of nonarbitrable matters the Boerums may litigate. Nonetheless, the Boerurns point to inapposite cases and CPLR provisions for the proposition that, due to being of advanced age-Christopher and Lorraine Boerum are 72 and 69 years old; respectively-staying this case pending arbitration would be prejudicial. See, e.g., CPLR J403{a)(4) {''Civil cases shall be tried in the order in which notes of issue have beenfiled, but the following shall be entitled to a preference ... arty action upo11 the application of a party who has reached the age ofseventy years."). To the extent that support for the Boerums' argu1nent exists, it has riot been pteseti.ted. [* 3] 3 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/25/2022 04:49 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 54 INDEX NO. 510368/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2022 III. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, Uber's motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff, JORGE GUEVARA- SANCHEZ's claims against Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER-NY, LLC is granted, which shall operate to stay this proceeding. Dated: Hon. i?arry D. Martin Supreme Court of the State of New York HON. LARRY MARTIN JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT [* 4] 4 of 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.