Morales v. Mobil Chemical

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morales v. Mobil Chemical

222 A.D.2d 1040, 635 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14093

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1040 (Morales v. Mobil Chemical) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morales v. Mobil Chemical, 222 A.D.2d 1040, 635 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint as barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff alleged a breach of an implied contract against her employer based upon her employer’s alleged failure to file a [1041]*1041contemporaneous report of her on-the-job injury. Because the filing of an injury report is conduct regulated by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 110), it "is subject to the protection of that law’s exclusivity” (Burlew v American Mut. Ins. Co., 63 NY2d 412, 416). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint as barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff alleged a breach of an implied contract against her employer based upon her employer’s alleged failure to file a [1041]*1041contemporaneous report of her on-the-job injury. Because the filing of an injury report is conduct regulated by the Workers’ Compensation Law (see, Workers’ Compensation Law § 110), it "is subject to the protection of that law’s exclusivity” (Burlew v American Mut. Ins. Co., 63 NY2d 412, 416). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J. — Dismiss Complaint.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1040, 635 N.Y.S.2d 893, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-v-mobil-chemical-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack