Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2022
04/25/2022 04:07
02:39 PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2022
04/25/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
FELIPE BURGOS,
INDEX NO.: 701930/2022
Plaintiff(s),
VERIFIED ANSWER,
- against - BILL OF PARTICULARS &
COMBINED DEMANDS
ZHINAN JIANG, TLC READY ONE LLC AND LYFT,
INC., Our File No.: 1101257
Case ID No.: 119364
Defendant(s). Your File No.: SAG-AUTO-ACC-67254
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
The Defendant(s) ZHINAN JIANG AND TLC READY ONE LLC by their/his/her
attorneys, BAKER, MCEVOY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. answering the Complaint of the Plaintiff
herein, respectfully shows and alleges upon information and belief, as follows:
ANSWER
Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as
follows: 3, 12, 30, 31, 42, 43, 44, 45.
Deny(ies) any knowledge or information thereof, sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations contained in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 1, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38,
40, 41.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation
contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully
set forth herein.
Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as
follows: 47, 48.
1 of 19
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2022
04/25/2022 04:07
02:39 PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2022
04/25/2022
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the answering Defendant(s) in that the
summons and complaint was not served upon the Defendant(s), and if the summons was served,
it was not effected in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 3 of the CPLR
governing the service of process.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
By reason of the provisions of Article 51 of the New York Comprehensive Motor Vehicle
Insurance Reparations Act, Sections 5101 to 5108, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this action and Plaintiff(s) is/are expressly prohibited from maintaining this action.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pursuant to the C.P.L.R. Sections 1411 and 1412, any damages sustained by the
Plaintiff(s) was/were caused by the culpable conduct of Plaintiff(s), including contributory
negligence or assumption of the risk, and not by the culpable conduct or negligence of the
answering Defendant(s).
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Pursuant to C.P.L.R. 4545, Plaintiff's recovery should be reduced by any amounts
received or that will be received by Plaintiff(s) from collateral sources of payment.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If Plaintiff(s) suffered injury and damage in the manner and at the time and place alleged
in the Complaint, which Defendant(s) deny, and if it is determined that said injury and damage
were caused by and contributed to the Plaintiff's failure to use or properly use seat belts, shoulder
harness(es) or other restraining devices, pursuant to the authority of Spier V. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d
444, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916, Defendant(s) pleads Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
If it is determined that Plaintiff(s) or any party to this lawsuit has proceeded to arbitration
with respect to any issue related to this action that results in an adverse ruling to said Plaintiff(s)
or party, then the answering Defendant(s) pleads said adverse ruling or award on the theory of
collateral estoppel under the authority of Matter of American Insurance Co. (Messenger-Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co.), 43 N.Y.2d 184, 401 N.Y.S.2d 36; Altman v. Queens Tr. Corp., 94 Misc.2d
549, 405 N.Y.S.2d 212; Dermatossian v. New York City Transit Authority, 67 N.Y.2d 219, 501
N.Y.S.2d 784; c.f. Baldwin v. Brooks, 83 A.D.2d 85, 443 N.Y.S.2d 906; Clemmens v. Apple, 65
N.Y.2d 746 and Schultz v. Boyscouts of America, 65 N.Y.2d 189.
2 of 19
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2022
04/25/2022 04:07
02:39 PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2022
04/25/2022
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Upon information and belief, plaintiff(s) failed to mitigate damages.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff(s) damages, if any, are limited by the offset provisions of Section 15-108 of the
General Obligations Law.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
For the Defendant(s) engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing vehicles,
including but not limited to the vehicle alleged in the Complaint, that/those Defendant(s) had no
active negligence or criminal wrongdoing related to the alleged accident in which personal
injuries are claimed to have been sustained by Plaintiff(s). As such, under Federal Legislation,
49 United State Code Chapter 301, Subdivision 1, Section 3016 titled “Rented or Leased Motor
Vehicle Safety and Responsibility,” Defendant(s) is/are not liable under the law of the State of
New York for the injuries alleged in the Complaint that may have resulted or arisen out of the
use, operation or possession of the vehicle stated in the Complaint. The Complaint therefore
fails to state a cause of action against Defendant(s). Dismissal will be sought, together with
costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Defendant(s) reserve(s) the right to amend the answer, defenses, and/or any
counterclaims and cross claims at a later date.
Cross-claim against: LYFT, INC.
If Plaintiff(s) was caused to sustain any injury and damages as alleged in the complaint
through the negligence or culpable conduct other than the plaintiff(s)' own negligence or
culpable conduct, the alleged injury and damages were caused by the negligence or culpable
conduct of the co-defendant(s) of the answering defendant(s) named as parties to this action in
failing to properly operate, control and/or maintain their motor vehicle(s) at the time and place
and under the circumstances alleged in the complaint, and that the answering defendant(s)
demand indemnification and/or contribution pursuant to Dole V. Dow Chemical Corp., 30
N.Y.2d 143, 331 N.Y.S.2d 382 and Article 14 of the C.P.L.R. from said co-defendant(s) for all
or part of any verdict or judgment which the plaintiff(s) may recover against the answering
defendant(s).
3 of 19
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2022
04/25/2022 04:07
02:39 PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2022
04/25/2022
WHEREFORE
WHEREFORE, Defendant(s) demand(s) judgment dismissing the Complaint or
diminishing the damages recoverable by Plaintiff(s) in proportion to the culpable conduct
attributable to Plaintiff(s), together with the costs and disbursements of this action, and further
demands that in the event answering Defendant(s) is/are found liable, that Defendant(s), on the
basis of apportionment of responsibility and/or indemnification, have judgment over against the
Co-Defendant(s) for all or part of the verdict or judgment that Plaintiff(s) may recover against
answering Defendant(s), together with the costs and disbursements of this action, and for any
expenses incurred in the defense thereof, including attorneys’ fees.
Dated: February 25, 2022
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Baker, McEvoy & Moskovits, PC
Ronit Z. Moskovits, Esq.
Attorney(s) for the Defendant
ZHINAN JIANG AND TLC READY ONE LLC
One MetroTech Center, 8th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Tel: 212-857-8230
SANDERS, ARONOVA, GROSSMAN, WOYCIK, VIENER & KALANT, PLLC
Attorney(s) for the Plaintiff(s)
FELIPE BURGOS
100 GARDEN CITY PLAZA, STE 500
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
Tel: (833) 726-3377
LYFT, INC.
Co-defendant(s)
111 EIGHTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10011
4 of 19
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2022
04/25/2022 04:07
02:39 PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2022
04/25/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
FELIPE BURGOS, INDEX NO.: 701930/2022
Plaintiff(s), ATTORNEY VERIFICATION
- against - Our File No.: 1101257
Case ID No.: 119364
ZHINAN JIANG, TLC READY ONE LLC AND LYFT, Your File No.: SAG-AUTO-ACC-
INC., 67254
Defendant(s).
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
I, RONIT Z. MOSKOVITS, an attorney admitted to the practice of law before the courts
of the State of New York, and not a party to the above-referenced action, affirm the following to
be true under the penalties of perjury:
1. Affirmant is a member of the law firm of BAKER, MCEVOY & MOSKOVITS,
P.C., attorneys of record for answering Defendant(s) in the above-referenced action.
2. Affirmant has read the VERIFIED ANSWER, BILL OF PARTICULARS, &
COMBINED DEMANDS and knows the contents thereof; that same is true to Affirmant’s own
knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as
to those matters Affirmant believes them to be true.
3. This verification is made by Affirmant and not by answering Defendant(s),
because said Defendant(s) were not within the County in which BAKER, MCEVOY &
MOSKOVITS, P.C. maintain their offices for the practice of law when this VERIFIED
ANSWER, BILL OF PARTICULARS, & COMBINED DEMANDS was drafted.
4. The grounds of Affirmant’s belief as to all matters not stated upon Affirmant’s
knowledge is as follows: BOOKS AND RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE FIRM OF
BAKER, MCEVOY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY
AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY.
Dated: February 25, 2022
Brooklyn, NY
Ronit Z. Moskovits, Esq.
5 of 19
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022
04/25/2022 11:53
02:39 AM
PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022
04/25/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF QUEENS
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X Index No.: 701930/2022
FELIPE BURGOS, :
:
Plaintiff, :
: VERIFIED ANSWER
-against- :
:
ZHINAN JIANG, TLC READY ONE LLC and LYFT, :
INC., :
:
Defendants. :
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
Defendant, LYFT, INC. by its attorneys LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH,
LLP, as and for its Verified Answer to the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, alleges the following
upon information and belief:
AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1. Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and
every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as
number “1”.
2. Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and
every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as
number “2”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the
trial court for determination.
3. Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and
every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as
number “3”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the
trial court for determination.
4866-7263-3366.1
1 of 18
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022
04/25/2022 11:53
02:39 AM
PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022
04/25/2022
4. Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and
every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as
number “4”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the
trial court for determination.
5. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every
allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number
“5” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court
for determination. By way of further response, Lyft is a corporation, duly organized and existing
by virtue of, and under the laws of, the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in the
State of California.
6. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft admits that it is a foreign
corporation licensed to do business in the State of New York, but otherwise denies as stated and
respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for
determination. By way of further response, Lyft is a corporation, duly organized and existing by
virtue of, and under the laws of, the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in the
State of California.
7. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every
allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number
“7” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court
for determination. By way of further response, Lyft is a corporation, duly organized and existing
by virtue of, and under the laws of, the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in the
State of California.
4866-7263-3366.1 -2-
2 of 18
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022
04/25/2022 11:53
02:39 AM
PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022
04/25/2022
8. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every
allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number
“8” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court
for determination. By way of further response, Lyft is a corporation, duly organized and existing
by virtue of, and under the laws of, the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in the
State of California.
9. Upon information and belief, admitted.
10. Lyft admits each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s
Verified Complaint designated as number “10”.
11. Upon information and belief, admitted.
12. Upon information and belief, admitted.
13. Upon information and belief, admitted.
14. Upon information and belief, admitted.
15. Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and
every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as
number “15”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the
trial court for determination.
16. Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s
Verified Complaint designated as number “16” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact,
or conclusions raised therein to the trialcourt for determination. By way of further response,
Plaintiff used the Lyft application, website and technology platform (collectively, the “platform”
or “Lyft platform”) to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a
passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan
Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft
4866-7263-3366.1 -3-
3 of 18
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022
04/25/2022 11:53
02:39 AM
PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022
04/25/2022
platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s
Terms of Service.
17. Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s
Verified Complaint designated as number “17” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact,
or conclusions raised therein to the trialcourt for determination. By way of further response,
Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service
and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or
employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor
who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride
pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service.
18. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every
allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number
“18” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court
for determination. By way of further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with
Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the
date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident,
Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other
platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service.
19. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every
allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number
“19” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court
for determination. By way of further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with
Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the
4866-7263-3366.1 -4-
4 of 18
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022
04/25/2022 11:53
02:39 AM
PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022
04/25/2022
date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident,
Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other
platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service.
20. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every
allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number
“20” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court
for determination. By way of further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with
Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the
date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident,
Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other
platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service.
21. Lyft denies as stated denies each and every allegation contained within the
paragraph designated as “21” of the Verified Complaint. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang
was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users
like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service.
22. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft admits only that Zhinan
Jiang operated the subject vehicle but otherwise denies each and every other allegation contained
within the paragraph designated as “22” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all
questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of
further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s
Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the date of the accident. Lyft did not
hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent
4866-7263-3366.1 -5-
5 of 18
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022
04/25/2022 11:53
02:39 AM
PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022
04/25/2022
contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking
for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service.
23. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft admits only that Zhinan
Jiang operated the subject vehicle but otherwise denies each and every other allegation contained
within the paragraph designated as “23” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all
questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of
further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s
Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the date of the accident. Lyft did not
hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent
contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking
for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service.
24. Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph designated as
“24” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions
raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own,
lease, rent, operate, control, maintain, manage, repair, or entrust the vehicle involved in the
incident in issue.
25. Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph designated as
“25” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions
raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own,
lease, rent, operate, control, maintain, manage, repair, or entrust the vehicle involved in the
incident in issue.
26. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the
4866-7263-3366.1 -6-
6 of 18
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022
04/25/2022 11:53
02:39 AM
PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022
04/25/2022
paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “26”, and respectfully refers all
questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination.
27. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the
paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “27”, and respectfully refers all
questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination.
28. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every
allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “28” of the Verified Complaint and
respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for
determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own, lease, rent, operate, control,
maintain, manage, repair, or entrust the vehicle involved in the incident in issue.
29. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the
paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “29”, and respectfully refers all
questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination.
30. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the
paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “30”, and respectfully refers all
questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination.
31. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every
4866-7263-3366.1 -7-
7 of 18
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022
04/25/2022 11:53
02:39 AM
PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022
04/25/2022
allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “31” of the Verified Complaint and
respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for
determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own, lease, rent, operate, control,
maintain, manage, repair, or entrust the vehicle involved in the incident in issue.
32. Upon information and belief, admitted.
33. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the
paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “33”, and respectfully refers all
questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination.
34. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every
allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “34” of the Verified Complaint and
respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for
determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own, lease, rent, operate, control,
maintain, manage, repair, or entrust the vehicle involved in the incident in issue.
35. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the
paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “35”, and respectfully refers all
questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination.
36. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the
4866-7263-3366.1 -8-
8 of 18
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022
04/25/2022 11:53
02:39 AM
PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7
14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022
04/25/2022
paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “36”, and respectfully refers all
questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination.
37. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response
is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every
allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “37” of the Verified Complaint and
respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for
determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own, lease, rent, operate,
Preview
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2022 04/25/2022 04:07 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2022 04/25/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS -----------------------------------------------------------------X FELIPE BURGOS, INDEX NO.: 701930/2022 Plaintiff(s), VERIFIED ANSWER, - against - BILL OF PARTICULARS & COMBINED DEMANDS ZHINAN JIANG, TLC READY ONE LLC AND LYFT, INC., Our File No.: 1101257 Case ID No.: 119364 Defendant(s). Your File No.: SAG-AUTO-ACC-67254 -----------------------------------------------------------------X The Defendant(s) ZHINAN JIANG AND TLC READY ONE LLC by their/his/her attorneys, BAKER, MCEVOY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. answering the Complaint of the Plaintiff herein, respectfully shows and alleges upon information and belief, as follows: ANSWER Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 3, 12, 30, 31, 42, 43, 44, 45. Deny(ies) any knowledge or information thereof, sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant(s) repeats, reiterates, and realleges their responses to each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. Deny(ies) each and every allegation in the paragraphs of the Complaint designated as follows: 47, 48. 1 of 19 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2022 04/25/2022 04:07 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2022 04/25/2022 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the answering Defendant(s) in that the summons and complaint was not served upon the Defendant(s), and if the summons was served, it was not effected in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 3 of the CPLR governing the service of process. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE By reason of the provisions of Article 51 of the New York Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act, Sections 5101 to 5108, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and Plaintiff(s) is/are expressly prohibited from maintaining this action. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pursuant to the C.P.L.R. Sections 1411 and 1412, any damages sustained by the Plaintiff(s) was/were caused by the culpable conduct of Plaintiff(s), including contributory negligence or assumption of the risk, and not by the culpable conduct or negligence of the answering Defendant(s). FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Pursuant to C.P.L.R. 4545, Plaintiff's recovery should be reduced by any amounts received or that will be received by Plaintiff(s) from collateral sources of payment. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Plaintiff(s) suffered injury and damage in the manner and at the time and place alleged in the Complaint, which Defendant(s) deny, and if it is determined that said injury and damage were caused by and contributed to the Plaintiff's failure to use or properly use seat belts, shoulder harness(es) or other restraining devices, pursuant to the authority of Spier V. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916, Defendant(s) pleads Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If it is determined that Plaintiff(s) or any party to this lawsuit has proceeded to arbitration with respect to any issue related to this action that results in an adverse ruling to said Plaintiff(s) or party, then the answering Defendant(s) pleads said adverse ruling or award on the theory of collateral estoppel under the authority of Matter of American Insurance Co. (Messenger-Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.), 43 N.Y.2d 184, 401 N.Y.S.2d 36; Altman v. Queens Tr. Corp., 94 Misc.2d 549, 405 N.Y.S.2d 212; Dermatossian v. New York City Transit Authority, 67 N.Y.2d 219, 501 N.Y.S.2d 784; c.f. Baldwin v. Brooks, 83 A.D.2d 85, 443 N.Y.S.2d 906; Clemmens v. Apple, 65 N.Y.2d 746 and Schultz v. Boyscouts of America, 65 N.Y.2d 189. 2 of 19 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2022 04/25/2022 04:07 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2022 04/25/2022 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Upon information and belief, plaintiff(s) failed to mitigate damages. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff(s) damages, if any, are limited by the offset provisions of Section 15-108 of the General Obligations Law. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE For the Defendant(s) engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing vehicles, including but not limited to the vehicle alleged in the Complaint, that/those Defendant(s) had no active negligence or criminal wrongdoing related to the alleged accident in which personal injuries are claimed to have been sustained by Plaintiff(s). As such, under Federal Legislation, 49 United State Code Chapter 301, Subdivision 1, Section 3016 titled “Rented or Leased Motor Vehicle Safety and Responsibility,” Defendant(s) is/are not liable under the law of the State of New York for the injuries alleged in the Complaint that may have resulted or arisen out of the use, operation or possession of the vehicle stated in the Complaint. The Complaint therefore fails to state a cause of action against Defendant(s). Dismissal will be sought, together with costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Defendant(s) reserve(s) the right to amend the answer, defenses, and/or any counterclaims and cross claims at a later date. Cross-claim against: LYFT, INC. If Plaintiff(s) was caused to sustain any injury and damages as alleged in the complaint through the negligence or culpable conduct other than the plaintiff(s)' own negligence or culpable conduct, the alleged injury and damages were caused by the negligence or culpable conduct of the co-defendant(s) of the answering defendant(s) named as parties to this action in failing to properly operate, control and/or maintain their motor vehicle(s) at the time and place and under the circumstances alleged in the complaint, and that the answering defendant(s) demand indemnification and/or contribution pursuant to Dole V. Dow Chemical Corp., 30 N.Y.2d 143, 331 N.Y.S.2d 382 and Article 14 of the C.P.L.R. from said co-defendant(s) for all or part of any verdict or judgment which the plaintiff(s) may recover against the answering defendant(s). 3 of 19 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2022 04/25/2022 04:07 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2022 04/25/2022 WHEREFORE WHEREFORE, Defendant(s) demand(s) judgment dismissing the Complaint or diminishing the damages recoverable by Plaintiff(s) in proportion to the culpable conduct attributable to Plaintiff(s), together with the costs and disbursements of this action, and further demands that in the event answering Defendant(s) is/are found liable, that Defendant(s), on the basis of apportionment of responsibility and/or indemnification, have judgment over against the Co-Defendant(s) for all or part of the verdict or judgment that Plaintiff(s) may recover against answering Defendant(s), together with the costs and disbursements of this action, and for any expenses incurred in the defense thereof, including attorneys’ fees. Dated: February 25, 2022 Brooklyn, N.Y. Baker, McEvoy & Moskovits, PC Ronit Z. Moskovits, Esq. Attorney(s) for the Defendant ZHINAN JIANG AND TLC READY ONE LLC One MetroTech Center, 8th Floor Brooklyn, New York 11201 Tel: 212-857-8230 SANDERS, ARONOVA, GROSSMAN, WOYCIK, VIENER & KALANT, PLLC Attorney(s) for the Plaintiff(s) FELIPE BURGOS 100 GARDEN CITY PLAZA, STE 500 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 Tel: (833) 726-3377 LYFT, INC. Co-defendant(s) 111 EIGHTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10011 4 of 19 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/03/2022 04/25/2022 04:07 02:39 PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 4 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/03/2022 04/25/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS -----------------------------------------------------------------X FELIPE BURGOS, INDEX NO.: 701930/2022 Plaintiff(s), ATTORNEY VERIFICATION - against - Our File No.: 1101257 Case ID No.: 119364 ZHINAN JIANG, TLC READY ONE LLC AND LYFT, Your File No.: SAG-AUTO-ACC- INC., 67254 Defendant(s). -----------------------------------------------------------------X I, RONIT Z. MOSKOVITS, an attorney admitted to the practice of law before the courts of the State of New York, and not a party to the above-referenced action, affirm the following to be true under the penalties of perjury: 1. Affirmant is a member of the law firm of BAKER, MCEVOY & MOSKOVITS, P.C., attorneys of record for answering Defendant(s) in the above-referenced action. 2. Affirmant has read the VERIFIED ANSWER, BILL OF PARTICULARS, & COMBINED DEMANDS and knows the contents thereof; that same is true to Affirmant’s own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters Affirmant believes them to be true. 3. This verification is made by Affirmant and not by answering Defendant(s), because said Defendant(s) were not within the County in which BAKER, MCEVOY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. maintain their offices for the practice of law when this VERIFIED ANSWER, BILL OF PARTICULARS, & COMBINED DEMANDS was drafted. 4. The grounds of Affirmant’s belief as to all matters not stated upon Affirmant’s knowledge is as follows: BOOKS AND RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE FIRM OF BAKER, MCEVOY & MOSKOVITS, P.C. AND INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY. Dated: February 25, 2022 Brooklyn, NY Ronit Z. Moskovits, Esq. 5 of 19 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 11:53 02:39 AM PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X Index No.: 701930/2022 FELIPE BURGOS, : : Plaintiff, : : VERIFIED ANSWER -against- : : ZHINAN JIANG, TLC READY ONE LLC and LYFT, : INC., : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X Defendant, LYFT, INC. by its attorneys LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP, as and for its Verified Answer to the Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint, alleges the following upon information and belief: AS AND FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 1. Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “1”. 2. Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “2”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 3. Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “3”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 4866-7263-3366.1 1 of 18 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 11:53 02:39 AM PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 4. Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “4”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 5. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “5” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft is a corporation, duly organized and existing by virtue of, and under the laws of, the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in the State of California. 6. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft admits that it is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the State of New York, but otherwise denies as stated and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft is a corporation, duly organized and existing by virtue of, and under the laws of, the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in the State of California. 7. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “7” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft is a corporation, duly organized and existing by virtue of, and under the laws of, the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in the State of California. 4866-7263-3366.1 -2- 2 of 18 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 11:53 02:39 AM PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 8. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “8” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft is a corporation, duly organized and existing by virtue of, and under the laws of, the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in the State of California. 9. Upon information and belief, admitted. 10. Lyft admits each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “10”. 11. Upon information and belief, admitted. 12. Upon information and belief, admitted. 13. Upon information and belief, admitted. 14. Upon information and belief, admitted. 15. Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “15”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 16. Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “16” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trialcourt for determination. By way of further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft application, website and technology platform (collectively, the “platform” or “Lyft platform”) to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft 4866-7263-3366.1 -3- 3 of 18 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 11:53 02:39 AM PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service. 17. Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “17” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trialcourt for determination. By way of further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service. 18. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “18” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service. 19. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “19” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the 4866-7263-3366.1 -4- 4 of 18 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 11:53 02:39 AM PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service. 20. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “20” and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service. 21. Lyft denies as stated denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “21” of the Verified Complaint. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service. 22. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft admits only that Zhinan Jiang operated the subject vehicle but otherwise denies each and every other allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “22” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent 4866-7263-3366.1 -5- 5 of 18 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 11:53 02:39 AM PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service. 23. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft admits only that Zhinan Jiang operated the subject vehicle but otherwise denies each and every other allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “23” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Plaintiff used the Lyft platform to connect with Zhinan Jiang pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service and was a passenger in Jiang’s vehicle on the date of the accident. Lyft did not hire, control or employ Zhinan Jiang. At the time of the accident, Zhinan Jiang was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users like Plaintiff looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft’s Terms of Service. 24. Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “24” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own, lease, rent, operate, control, maintain, manage, repair, or entrust the vehicle involved in the incident in issue. 25. Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “25” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own, lease, rent, operate, control, maintain, manage, repair, or entrust the vehicle involved in the incident in issue. 26. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the 4866-7263-3366.1 -6- 6 of 18 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 11:53 02:39 AM PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “26”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 27. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “27”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 28. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “28” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own, lease, rent, operate, control, maintain, manage, repair, or entrust the vehicle involved in the incident in issue. 29. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “29”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 30. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “30”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 31. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every 4866-7263-3366.1 -7- 7 of 18 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 11:53 02:39 AM PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “31” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own, lease, rent, operate, control, maintain, manage, repair, or entrust the vehicle involved in the incident in issue. 32. Upon information and belief, admitted. 33. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “33”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 34. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “34” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own, lease, rent, operate, control, maintain, manage, repair, or entrust the vehicle involved in the incident in issue. 35. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “35”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 36. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to each and every allegation contained within the 4866-7263-3366.1 -8- 8 of 18 FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 11:53 02:39 AM PM INDEX NO. 701930/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2022 04/25/2022 paragraph of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint designated as number “36”, and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact, or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. 37. The averments in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, Lyft denies each and every allegation contained within the paragraph designated as “37” of the Verified Complaint and respectfully refers all questions of law, fact or conclusions raised therein to the trial court for determination. By way of further response, Lyft did not own, lease, rent, operate,