Letter,Correspondence: Doordash, Inc., Grubhub Inc. v. New York City Department Of Consumer And Worker Protection, Vilda Vera Mayuga , in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                THE CITY OF NEW YORK
HON. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX                LAW DEPARTMENT                                          KAREN B. SELVIN
Corporation Counsel                            100 CHURCH STREET                                 Phone: (212) 356-2208
                                               NEW YORK, NY 10007                                  Fax: (212) 356-2019
                                                                                                  kselvin@law.nyc.gov



                                                                    September 29, 2023

       VIA NYSCEF AND EMAIL
       Hon. Nicholas W. Moyne
       Supreme Court of the State of New York
       IAS Part 52
       80 Centre Street, Room 309
       New York, New York 10007

       Re: DoorDash, Inc. v. NYC Dep’t of Consumer and Worker Protection, Index No. 155947/23
           Uber Techs., Inc. v. NYC Dep’t of Consumer and Worker Protection, Index No. 155943/23

       Your Honor,

               Respondents New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”)
       and Vilda Vera Mayuga, Commissioner of DCWP, respectfully submit this response to letters
       filed on September 28, 2023, by Petitioners DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber, requesting that the
       Court, sua sponte, temporarily stay enforcement of the food delivery worker Minimum Pay Rule
       pursuant to CPLR 7805 pending a ruling from the Appellate Division on Petitioners’
       forthcoming applications for interim relief. DoorDash NYSCEF Doc. No. 89; Uber NYSCEF
       Doc. No. 117. By decision dated September 27, 2023, and filed in the Clerk’s Office on
       September 28, 2023, this Court denied Petitioners’ motions for a preliminary injunction seeking
       to enjoin implementation of the Minimum Pay Rule. DoorDash NYSCEF Doc. No. 87; Uber
       NYSCEF Doc. No. 115. Respondents submit that Petitioners’ request for a temporary stay of
       enforcement pursuant to CPLR 7805 should be denied in its entirety.

               It is well-settled that “[t]he criteria for a determination under CPLR § 7805 relies on the
       same factors as a preliminary injunction[.]” Taub v. Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2016
       N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 795, at *7, 2016 NY Slip Op 30409(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Mar. 11, 2016)
       (citing Melvin v. Union College, 195 A.D.2d 447 (2d Dep’t 1993)). See also Matter of Erikson
       v. Schenectady City Sch. Dist., 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4415, at *19, 2023 NY Slip Op
       33006(U) (Sup. Ct., Schenectady Cnty. Aug. 28, 2023) (citing Harbor View Ass’n v. Sucher, 237
       A.D.2d 488 (2d Dep’t 1997); Matter of Yung Bros. Real Estate Co. Inc. v. Limandri, 26 Misc. 3d
       1203[A] (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. 2009)); Matter of Mackey Automotive LLC v. NYS Dep’t of Motor
       Vehicles, 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2407, at *2, 2018 NY Slip Op 50951(U) (Sup. Ct., Albany
       Cnty. Jan. 19, 2018) (citing STS Steel, Inc. v. Maxon Alco Holdings, LLC, 123 A.D.3d 1260 (3d
Dep’t 2014); Matter of Riccelli Enters., Inc. v. State of NY Workers’ Compensation Bd., 117
A.D.3d 1438 (4th Dep’t 2014); Matter of Albany Basketball & Sports Corp. v. City of Albany,
969 N.Y.S.2d 801 (Sup. Ct., Albany Cnty. 2013)). In its decision denying Petitioners’
preliminary injunction motions, this Court set forth its findings that DoorDash, Grubhub and
Uber failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, failed to establish irreparable
injury, and failed to establish that the balance of the equities tip in their favor. Based on the
foregoing, Petitioners cannot establish entitlement to a stay under CPLR 7805.

        As this Court is aware, the Minimum Pay Rule was originally scheduled to go into effect
on July 12, 2023. In his affidavit dated July 18, 2023, Samuel Krinsky, Executive Director of
Policy and Analytics of the Office of Labor Policy & Standards at DCWP, estimated that food
delivery workers are losing collectively $15 million dollars per week due to the delay in
implementation of the Minimum Pay Rule. DoorDash NYSCEF Doc. No. 53, at ¶ 23; Uber
NYSCEF Doc. No. 85, at ¶ 23. The food delivery workers have waited long enough to earn a
livable wage and these Petitioners should not be allowed to continue to profit from further
delay. 1 Accordingly, Respondents respectfully request that this Court deny Petitioners’ request
for a temporary stay of enforcement of the Minimum Pay Rule.




                                                          Respectfully submitted,

                                                                 /s/

                                                          Karen B. Selvin
                                                          Assistant Corporation Counsel



cc:     Plaintiffs’ Counsel of Record (Via ECF)




1
  In an email sent by the undersigned to counsel for Petitioners on September 28, 2023, I advised
Petitioners of DCWP’s understanding of their pay periods and when the minimum pay rate would take
effect. See DoorDash NYSCEF Doc. No. 90. Notably absent from Petitioners’ letters to the Court is any
reference to the fact that in that email, I specifically noted that the first payment reflecting the minimum
pay rate will be due on October 15, 2023. This date affords Petitioners more than enough time to seek
relief from the Appellate Division, which is an additional reason for this Court to deny the request for a
temporary stay of enforcement.