Reichel v Revel Tr. Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 32036(U)

June 18, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 150046/2021

Judge: W. Franc Perry, III

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.
150046/2021 REICHEL, JOSEPH vs. REVEL TRANSIT INCORPORATED 

Motion No. 002 

Page 1 of 4 

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 

47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 

were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - MONEY . 

On November 11, 2023, the plaintiff moved to enforce a settlement pursuant to CPLR § 

2104. The defendant filed a motion opposing such and instead seeking enforcement of the 

August 24, 2023 arbitration award in this matter. 

The plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter on January 1, 2021, alleging that he was 

injured while operating one of the defendant’s mopeds. On February 17, 2021, the defendant 

filed a demand for arbitration pursuant to CPLR § 7503(c) based upon the underlying moped 

rental agreement entered into between the parties. This Court granted the defendant’s motion to 

compel arbitration on November 10, 2021. 

The arbitration between the parties began on January 5, 2023. The deadline to withdrawal 

from arbitration without the parties incurring cancellation costs and fees was July 10, 2023. (See 

NYSCEF Doc. No. 59) On July 3, 2023, counsel for the defendant emailed a settlement offer to 

plaintiff’s counsel. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 57) Plaintiff’s counsel replied with a counteroffer on 

that same day. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 58) 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

NEW YORK COUNTY 

PRESENT: HON. W. FRANC PERRY PART

Justice

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 150046/2021 

MOTION DATE 11/01/2023 

MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION 

JOSEPH REICHEL 

 Plaintiff, 

- v -

REVEL TRANSIT INCORPORATED, 

 Defendant. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 

INDEX NO. 150046/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2024

1 of 4 [* 1]
150046/2021 REICHEL, JOSEPH vs. REVEL TRANSIT INCORPORATED 

Motion No. 002 

Page 2 of 4 

On July 10, 2023, the arbitrator reached out to the parties notifying them that it was the 

last day to cancel or adjourn the arbitration without incurring a penalty. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 

59) Both parties replied to the arbitrator that they had not agreed on a settlement amount and that 

the matter was therefore proceeding to arbitration. In fact, the plaintiff’s counsel wrote that she 

hadn’t heard back from the defendant’s counsel after the defendant’s initial offer of $25,000 and 

her counter demand of $75,000 and indicating that she “guess[ed] that means you would like to 

proceed with the [arbitration] on August 8th.” See Id. Defendant’s counsel replied to the 

plaintiff’s counsel confirming that the defendant would not go higher than $25,000 and that the 

parties were in fact headed to arbitration. See Id. 

On July 14, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel extended a new offer of settlement to the 

defendant’s counsel in the amount of $30,000.00. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 60) Later that same 

day, plaintiff’s counsel attempted to accept the defendant’s original offer from July 3, 2023. 

Defendant’s counsel responded that the initial offer had been withdrawn. Thereafter, plaintiff’s 

counsel sent a letter directly to Revel’s insurance carrier, but not defendant’s counsel, indicating 

that a $25,000 settlement had been reached between the parties. After the insurance carrier 

shared the letter with defendant’s counsel, counsel confirmed receipt of the release but again 

reminded plaintiff’s counsel that the matter had not been settled. (See NYSCEF No. 65) The 

parties having not been able to settle the matter proceeded with arbitration. On August 24, 2023, 

the arbitrator issued an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims and awarding the defendant the 

costs of arbitration. 

For there to be an enforceable agreement between the parties, there must be “an offer, 

acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, and an intent to be bound.” See Kasowitz, 

Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP. v. Duane Reade, 98 A.D.3d 403, 404 (1st Dept. 2012). “If 

INDEX NO. 150046/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2024

2 of 4 [* 2]
150046/2021 REICHEL, JOSEPH vs. REVEL TRANSIT INCORPORATED 

Motion No. 002 

Page 3 of 4 

instead the offeree responds by conditioning acceptance on new or modified terms, that response 

constitutes both a rejection and a counteroffer which extinguishes the initial offer. The 

counteroffer extinguishes the original offer, and thereafter the offeree cannot...unilaterally 

revive the offer by accepting it.” See Thor Props., LLC v. Willspring Holdings LLC, 118 A.D.3d 

505, 508 (1st Dept. 2014). “It is a fundamental tenet of contract law that a counteroffer 

constitutes a rejection of an offer as a matter of law”. See Jericho Group, Ltd. v. Midtown Dev., 

L.P., 32 A.D.3d 294, 299 (1st Dept. 2006). “Acceptance [of an offer] must be of the terms stated 

in the offer, and if the offeree responds by adding provisions or making a counterproposal, the 

offer is deemed rejected [internal quotations omitted] rendering subsequent acceptance 

impossible.” See Kleinger v. Ambassador Associates, 103 A.D.2d 347, 348 (1st Dept. 1984). 

The plaintiff alleges that the parties reached a settlement in this matter and is seeking 

enforcement of such. The Court finds that there is absolutely no evidence that the parties entered 

into an enforceable settlement. In fact, the record is clear that the defendant’s initial settlement 

offer was repeatedly and explicitly rejected by the plaintiff. The plaintiff rejected the initial offer 

both through her counteroffers and by stating explicitly that her client would accept nothing 

below $75,000. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 58) Plaintiff’s counsel then confirmed with the 

arbitrator that the parties had not been able to settle the matter and that they would be proceeding 

with arbitration. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 59) 

The Court having found no evidence that the parties settled this matter denies the 

plaintiff’s CPLR § 2104 motion to enforce an alleged settlement and grants the defendant’s cross 

motion to enforce the August 24, 2023 arbitration award. 

INDEX NO. 150046/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2024

3 of 4 [* 3]
150046/2021 REICHEL, JOSEPH vs. REVEL TRANSIT INCORPORATED 

Motion No. 002 

Page 4 of 4 

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. 

 

06/18/2024 $SIG$

DATE W. FRANC PERRY, J.S.C. 

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 

X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER 

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER 

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE 

INDEX NO. 150046/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/18/2024

4 of 4

□ 

□ 

[* 4]