You are here: / / Employer Must Show Workers’ Compensation Board Approved a Settlement...

Employer Must Show Workers’ Compensation Board Approved a Settlement with the Plaintiff In Order to Be Entitled to Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff ‘s Subsequent Damages Suit (Plaintiff-Employee Is Not Entitled to Both Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Damages But an Unapproved Settlement Is Not Binding)

The Second Department determined defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff-employee’s personal injury complaint was properly denied.  Although the defendant and the employer had reached a settlement, the Workers’ Compensation Board never approved the settlement.  Without demonstrating the board approved the settlement, the employer was not entitled to summary judgment. An unapproved settlement is not binding on the parties:

Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) provide that an employee who elects to receive compensation benefits may not sue his or her employer in an action at law for the injuries sustained” … . A defendant moving for summary judgment based on the exclusivity defense of the Workers’ Compensation Law must demonstrate, prima facie, the applicability of the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law … . Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 provides, in relevant part, that once a claim has been filed, the claimant, the employer and its carrier may enter into “an agreement settling upon and determining the compensation and other benefits due to the claimant” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 32[a]). However, that statute also provides that the “agreement shall not bind the parties to it, unless it is approved by the board” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 32[a]). While a plaintiff cannot receive both the benefits of Workers’ Compensation and damages in an action at law …, here, the defendant failed to establish that a settlement agreement reached by the parties was approved by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Smith-Lerner v Art Students League of NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 04476, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

You might also like
MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE NEGLECT FINDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INTEREST CALCULATION WAS DONE USING THE METHOD REQUIRED BY THE NOTE AND THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED.
Despite Mandatory Language In the Statute Requiring that an Action Against a School District Be Brought in the County Where the School District Is Located, the Court Has the Discretion to Grant a Motion for a Change of Venue Based Upon the Convenience of Material Witnesses and the Absence of Prejudice to the School District
THE AFFIDAVITS DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 WAS ACTUALLY MAILED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
INFANT PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING BECAUSE OF PEBBLES AND WET GRASS ON THE SOCCER FIELD (SECOND DEPT). ​
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SIGNATURES ON THE NOTE AND DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT RAISE QUESTIONS OF FACT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED, PROCEDURE ON REMITTAL EXPLAINED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Abuse Finding, Based Upon an Unsatisfactory Explanation for the Child’s... Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment In Action Against Golf Course Re: Incursion...