LEE v. Ryan Griffith, Defendant. (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Michael LEE et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. LYFT INC., Defendant–Respondent, Ryan Griffith, Defendant.

6834

Decided: June 09, 2026

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 A.D.2d 155, 156 [1st Dept 2003]; cf. Favourite Ltd. v. Cico, 42 NY3d 250, 257–258 [2024] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network