A Manhattan state judge has taken the unusual step of allowing a former Prudential Financial employee to file an amended complaint incorporating a promissory estoppel claim against his former employer, even though he had withdrawn an allegation that the company violated New York’s whistleblower statute.

“Those who are familiar with the original complaint are aware that the previously-asserted whistleblower claim and the present promissory estoppel cause of action relate to the same background facts,” said Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Lowe III in Bones v. Prudential Financial, 1023396/2007. “But that prior complaint is now moot.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]