From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosa v. Quarry Crotona Homes, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 22, 1997
239 A.D.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 22, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.),


The motion court correctly held that because defendant appellant was named in the Workers Compensation Board proceeding and specifically argued therein, through counsel, that it was plaintiff's employer, it should be collaterally estopped from arguing herein that it was plaintiff's "employer" by reason of its alter ego relationship with the company found by the Board to be plaintiffs employer ( see, Vogel v. Herk El. Co., 229 A.D.2d 331).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Rosa v. Quarry Crotona Homes, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 22, 1997
239 A.D.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Rosa v. Quarry Crotona Homes, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:HERIBERTO ROSA et al., Respondents, v. QUARRY CROTONA HOMES, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 22, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 19

Citing Cases

Tate v. 222 East 39th Street Co., Llc.

Furthermore, the court is unable to consider plaintiff's collateral estoppel argument without evidence of the…

Guaman v. 1963 Ryer Realty Corp.

Moreover, no substantial rights of any party appear to have been prejudiced ( seeCPLR 2002). The court…