You are here: / / DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION...
,

DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; HERE THE DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS REMEDY WAS LIMITED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the judicial estoppel doctrine applied and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the workers’ compensation affirmative defense in this personal injury action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured on the job. In the Workers’ Compensation proceeding defendants argued plaintiff was an not an employee. In this action defendants argued he was an employee and his recovery is limited to Workers’ Compensation:

… [T]he record makes clear that defendants, through Old Republic [insurance company], consistently advanced in the Workers’ Compensation Law proceeding the theory that plaintiff was not its employee. Old Republic, as the workers’ compensation carrier for defendants, was subsequently discharged from this proceeding. As such, defendants achieved its desired result after asserting the lack of an employer-employee relationship. Although the record is not explicit as to the basis for the discharge of Old Republic from the Workers’ Compensation Law proceeding, “[t]he policy behind judicial estoppel would not be served by limiting its application to cases where the legal position at issue was ruled upon in the context of a judgment” … .

In this action … defendants have taken a contrary position — i.e., plaintiff was employed by defendants as a special employee and, therefore, his sole remedy for compensation was to pursue workers’ compensation benefits. Allowing defendants to argue in this action that plaintiff was their employee, after they had disavowed an employer-employee relationship in the Workers’ Compensation Law proceeding and received a benefit from this position, would subvert the equitable policy behind the doctrine of judicial estoppel … . Walker v GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00484, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

You might also like
Only Out-of-Pocket Damages Allowed in Fraud Action (Re: a Real Estate Purchase Agreement)
Failure to Empanel the First Six Jurors Chosen by the Parties Justified Setting Aside the Verdict
THE STAY-AWAY ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED BASED SOLELY ON A PSYCHOLOGIST’S REPORTS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TESTIMONY (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL.
ATV’S ARE NOT MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW 125.13 (1) (FIRST DEGREE VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER); CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS OF PENAL LAW 125.13 (3) DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF A LEASE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE HUD REGULATION REQUIRING THAT THE REASONS FOR TERMINATION BE STATED WITH ENOUGH SPECIFICITY TO ALLOW THE TENANT TO MOUNT A DEFENSE; EVICTION ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE TRUST AGREEMENT INDICATED THE DECEDENT INTENDED A CHARITABLE GIFT BE MADE TO A PARTICULAR LOCAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL WHICH HAD CLOSED, NOT TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH HAD OPERATED THE CLOSED SCHOOL 3RD DEPT.
EVEN IF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE INSURER AND CLAIMANT INSURANCE BROKER INCLUDED ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS IN LABOR LAW 511, THE BROKER WILL BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYEE IF THE SERVICES ACTUALLY PROVIDED BY THE BROKER ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS (THIRD DEPT).

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

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE ACCIDENT... THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DID NOT PRECLUDE THIS ACTION TO DETERMINE...