CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Reif & Williams Sportswear, Inc.

This case addresses whether a corporation is bound by an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement ratified by its predecessor partnership. The petitioner, Local 169 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, initiated arbitration against the respondent, Williams Sportswear Co., Inc., for defaulting on payments to employee funds. The corporation, formed by the same partners who ran the predecessor partnership, continued the same business in the same location and sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was not a party to the agreement. While the Special Term denied the stay, the Appellate Division reversed, absolving the corporation of the obligation. The higher court, however, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the corporation acts as an 'alter ego' of the original promoters and is thus bound by the collective bargaining agreement, emphasizing that a change in corporate form does not negate pre-existing contractual obligations when the underlying business remains unchanged. Therefore, arbitration was deemed enforceable.

Arbitration AgreementCollective Bargaining AgreementCorporate LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSuccessor EmployerStay of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionCorporate FormationContractual ObligationsUnion Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between I. S. Joseph Co. & Toufic Aris & Fils

The Supreme Court affirmed a judgment dismissing Joseph's petition to stay arbitration and granting Toufic's cross-petition to compel arbitration, concurrently vacating an earlier stay pending appeal. The dispute arose from an oral grain sale agreement between Joseph, a Minnesota seller, and Toufic, a buyer from France and Lebanon, where both parties exchanged telex confirmations that largely agreed but had minor differences, and crucially incorporated a North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) contract containing a broad arbitration clause enforceable in New York. The court determined that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, asserting that New York law governed the arbitration provision due to its significant contacts, irrespective of the performance location. The majority opinion found the arbitration agreement valid, with some justices viewing it as part of a valid sales contract under UCC 2-207(2)(b), while others deemed the arbitration clause separable. Justice Nunez dissented, arguing for a remand to ascertain the validity of the underlying sales agreement, highlighting telex discrepancies and the non-execution of a formal contract as crucial factors impacting the arbitration agreement's existence.

Arbitration AgreementContract FormationChoice of LawUniform Commercial CodeInternational TradeGrain SaleTelex ConfirmationNAEGA ContractMaterial AlterationSeparability Doctrine
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Heights—West Harlem—Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU

This District Court opinion addresses motions by the Washington Heights Mental Health Council to amend its complaint and by District 1199 to enforce an arbitration award. Previously, the court vacated an award reinstating Edward Lane with back pay, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. The court now finds an oral collective bargaining agreement existed, generally requiring enforcement of the arbitration award. However, new serious allegations against Lane, if proven, could justify discharge. A strong public policy against reinstating a mental health worker accused of sexually molesting patients warrants staying his reinstatement pending arbitration of these new claims. Despite this, the court orders the Council to comply with the back pay portion of the arbitration award, finding no public policy violation in that aspect.

Arbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementBack PayReinstatement StayedSexual Misconduct AllegationsPublic Policy ExceptionLabor DisputeAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRemand Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Carborundum Co. & Swisher

Petitioner sought a stay of arbitration initiated by respondents (unions) regarding disputes over work assignments and methods, specifically the use of IBM machines, research and development engineers, independent contractors, and trucking companies. The court determined that the arbitration clause in the labor agreement limited grievances to disagreements about the proper application, administration, performance, or enforcement of the agreement's terms. Petitioner successfully argued that the controversies involved its exclusive and unqualified management rights, which were not expressly abridged by the agreement. Therefore, the court ruled that these disputes did not constitute arbitrable grievances, granting the stay of arbitration.

Stay of ArbitrationManagement RightsLabor AgreementArbitration ClauseGrievance DefinitionWork Assignment DisputesExclusive Management PrerogativesCollective Bargaining AgreementNon-Arbitrable Disputes
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between County of Broome & New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, District Council 82

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted petitioners' application to stay arbitration. The dispute originated when correction officer Tim Mooney was reassigned from courthouse duties by an Administrative Judge. The respondent union filed a grievance on Mooney's behalf, arguing that the reassignment violated a collective bargaining agreement and sought arbitration for his reinstatement. Petitioners, the County of Broome and Sheriff Harder, commenced a proceeding to stay arbitration, contending that public policy prohibits arbitration in this matter. The Supreme Court agreed and granted the application. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that Mooney's reinstatement would infringe upon the courts' inherent authority to manage judicial functions and would be contrary to strong public policy.

Arbitration StayPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial AuthorityCourt ManagementGrievanceEmployee ReassignmentCorrection OfficerBroome CountyAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re of the Arbitration between Town of Evans & International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition to stay arbitration, granted respondent's counterclaim to compel arbitration, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees and sanctions. The petitioner had terminated an accountant, Elmar Kiefer, for alleged sexual abuse and misuse of resources. Respondent filed a grievance on Kiefer's behalf, leading to a demand for arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was against public policy as an arbitrator might reinstate Kiefer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the public policy argument was premature and that courts should not pre-emptively assume an arbitrator will exceed their powers or violate public policy. The court also denied attorney's fees and sanctions for both parties.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementSexual HarassmentMisconductAttorney's FeesSanctionsAppellate ReviewGrievanceEmployment Termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1976

In re the Arbitration between S. M. Rose Corp., & Meyers

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed a judgment denying the employer's application to stay arbitration and granting the union's cross-petition to compel arbitration. The court emphasized the strong federal and state policy favoring arbitration for labor disputes. It ruled that the employer's objections, including those related to subcontracting and consulting employees on repair estimates, were arbitrable as per CPLR 7501, which states courts should not consider the merits of a claim when deciding arbitrability. The court also dismissed the employer's antitrust argument, finding no prima facie showing that the union's proposals would violate antitrust laws.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingAntitrust LawArbitrabilityCPLR 7501Court of AppealsAppellate DivisionSupreme Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maye v. Smith Barney Inc.

Plaintiffs Kelsey Maye and Jermarlon Harris sued their employer, Smith Barney Inc., and supervisors Kenneth Shaw and Robert M. Skelton, alleging sexual harassment and racial discrimination under Title VII and New York Executive Law. Defendants moved to dismiss or compel arbitration, citing "Principles of Employment" signed by plaintiffs that mandated arbitration for employment disputes. The court, presided over by Judge Motley, evaluated the enforceability and scope of these arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court determined that the agreements were clear and enforceable under New York contract law and federal policy favoring arbitration, rejecting plaintiffs' argument of not knowingly accepting arbitration. Consequently, the defendants' motion to compel arbitration was granted, and the court action was stayed pending arbitration.

Employment ArbitrationSexual Harassment ClaimsRacial Discrimination ClaimsTitle VII LitigationFederal Arbitration ActDispute Resolution ProceduresEmployee Contract DisputesMotion to Compel ArbitrationSecurities Industry EmploymentNew York Executive Law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dworkes & Chalek

This case involves an application by a petitioner to stay arbitration against respondent Chalek, stemming from disputes related to a partnership agreement dated July 18, 1961. The partnership agreement includes an arbitration clause for controversies arising out of the contract. The petitioner argued that the disputes were not subject to arbitration due to unambiguous terms, lack of explicit arbitrator permission for interpretation, and the improper inclusion of an agreement without an arbitration clause. The court found the petitioner's contentions without merit, affirming that while the court determines if an arbitrable dispute exists, the interpretation of a broadly agreed-upon arbitration clause is for the arbitrators. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration was denied, the petition dismissed, and the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationPartnership DisputeStay of ArbitrationMotion DeniedArbitrabilityScope of ArbitrationAmerican Arbitration AssociationDispute ResolutionJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 1986

Wurttembergische Feuerversicherung AG. v. Pan Atlantic Group, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied the petitioner’s application to stay arbitration of a contract claim and granted the respondent’s cross motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose from an underwriting management agreement, and due to the involvement of interstate commerce, the Federal Arbitration Act applied. The appellate court affirmed the order, emphasizing that the strong policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements outweighs concerns about potential piecemeal litigation, even when a related federal action is pending.

arbitrationcontract claimappealstay arbitrationcompel arbitrationFederal Arbitration Actinterstate commerceCPLR Article 75judicial reviewunderwriting management agreement
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,998 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational