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 Campbell & State of New York

Monica A. Campbell, a state employee, and her union, New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association (COPBA), entered into a disciplinary settlement agreement with her employer, the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH). This agreement established a one-year disciplinary evaluation period (DEP) during which Campbell could be terminated without recourse to arbitration if she committed misconduct. Following two incidents, OMH terminated Campbell's employment. Petitioners (Campbell and COPBA) sought to compel arbitration of the termination, arguing that the agreement did not explicitly exclude arbitration on the question of misconduct. Supreme Court ordered arbitration. Respondents (OMH) appealed, arguing the DEP constituted a probationary period where OMH had the right to make a threshold determination of misconduct without arbitration. The appellate court agreed with OMH, finding that the parties intended to exclude arbitration for the threshold determination of misconduct during the DEP, and that petitioners' sole remedy was judicial review under CPLR article 78. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order compelling arbitration was reversed, the petitioners' application denied, and the respondents' cross-application to stay arbitration was granted. The matter was remitted for consideration of petitioners' alternative CPLR article 78 request.

ArbitrationDisciplinary ActionEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic EmployeesProbationary PeriodMisconductJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Agress & Brouillet

Petitioner sought an order to direct arbitration against the respondents after they allegedly refused to permit the petitioner to complete a contract for work, labor, and services on the respondents' premises. The contract included a specific arbitration clause covering disputes concerning the construction/meaning of specifications or the true value of extra work. The respondents opposed, arguing that the issue of contract termination or its justification was not covered by the arbitration clause. The court, citing precedent, determined that the arbitration clause was limited and did not encompass disputes regarding a breach of contract by either party. Consequently, finding no arbitrable dispute under the contract, the court denied the motion to direct arbitration.

ArbitrationContract DisputeScope of Arbitration ClauseMotion to Compel ArbitrationBreach of ContractLimited Arbitration Clause
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Massena Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order that vacated an arbitration award concerning a custodian, Eric Fetterly. Fetterly, an employee of the petitioner and a member of the respondent union, filed three grievances after an on-the-job injury, disputing his vacation credits, sick leave, and a disciplinary letter. The arbitrator found in Fetterly's favor on all three issues. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, finding the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The appellate court modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing its decision to vacate the arbitrator's determinations on grievances two and three, while affirming the vacatur of the first grievance.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceVacation CreditsSick LeaveDisciplinary ActionArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation LeavePublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration bet. New Hampshire Insurance & Utilities Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal from an order that partially granted a petitioner's application to vacate an arbitration award. The underlying dispute arose from an accident involving a truck crane that injured Grady McClaney, an employee of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, who subsequently received workers' compensation benefits from the respondent carrier. McClaney settled a personal injury action against multiple parties for over $4 million, with Niagara Mohawk waiving its compensation lien as part of the settlement. Subsequently, the respondent initiated a loss transfer arbitration to recoup $50,000 in compensation benefits from the petitioner, Gallagher’s no-fault carrier, citing Insurance Law § 5105 (b) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1-a). The arbitration panel ruled in favor of the respondent, but the Supreme Court remanded the matter due to procedural defects. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirmed the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition, finding the panel's decision rational and the procedural defects non-prejudicial.

Arbitration AwardWorkers' CompensationLoss TransferNo-Fault InsuranceLien WaiverPersonal Injury SettlementAppellate ReviewProcedural DefectsInsurance LawCPLR 7511
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Thompson & S.L.T. Ready-Mix

The petitioner sought to confirm an arbitration award against the respondent for re-employment and damages. After the matter was remitted for a rehearing on damages, the respondent requested extensive discovery which the Supreme Court denied pre-hearing. At a rescheduled hearing, the respondent subpoenaed the documents, but the petitioner did not produce them, and the arbitrator never ordered compliance. The arbitrator questioned the petitioner on relevant issues, and the respondent participated under protest. The arbitrator awarded $9,443 plus interest. The Supreme Court confirmed the award, and the respondent appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding no arbitrator misconduct in refusing discovery or failing to apply substantive law on mitigation, as arbitrators are not bound by strict rules of evidence or law. The court also declined to impose sanctions against the respondent.

Arbitration AwardAppealDiscovery DisputeArbitrator AuthorityEvidentiary RulingsMitigation of DamagesJudicial ReviewDue ProcessSanctionsAppellate Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between County of Sullivan & Teamsters Local 445

The case concerns an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment that granted Sullivan County's (petitioner) application to vacate an arbitration award. The dispute arose after the County unilaterally reduced home health aide positions from full-time to part-time, leading the Civil Service Employees Association (respondent) to file a grievance and subsequently demand arbitration. Initially, an arbitrator ordered the aides restored to full-time status with back pay, finding violations of the collective bargaining agreement. However, the Supreme Court vacated this award, determining the arbitrator's application of a specific agreement section (408) was irrational as it applied only to 40-hour work weeks, not the aides' 35-hour week. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the collective bargaining agreement did not prohibit the County's reduction of hours due to business necessity.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceWork Hours ReductionJudicial ReviewVacating AwardAffirmed JudgmentPublic Sector EmploymentLabor DisputeManagement Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2006

In re the Arbitration between Mays-Carr & State Farm Insurance

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied her petition seeking to set aside an arbitration award and to obtain a new hearing before a different arbitrator. The petitioner contended that the arbitrator either exceeded his power or imperfectly executed it, and also alleged partiality, referencing CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (ii), (iii). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, asserting that an arbitrator's power is exceeded only when the award violates strong public policy, is irrational, or explicitly surpasses enumerated limitations. It found the arbitrator's determination, which denied the petitioner an award for economic loss beyond basic economic loss, to be rational and supported by the record, especially given the absence of a serious injury finding. Furthermore, the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's claims of arbitrator bias as speculative, stating that past adverse rulings against her counsel do not inherently establish a lack of impartiality.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardArbitrator ImpartialityExceeded PowerImperfect ExecutionSerious InjuryEconomic LossAppellate ReviewNew York State
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Buffalo Board of Education & AFSCME Local 264

The Buffalo Board of Education (Board) appealed an arbitration award that found it violated a collective bargaining agreement by appointing an AFSCME Local 264 (Local 264) member to a promotional position instead of a Professional, Clerical and Technical Employees Association (PCTEA) member. The Supreme Court had granted Local 264's motion to intervene and vacated the arbitration award. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that Local 264 was not entitled to intervene as it was not a party to the agreement or arbitration. The court also determined that the arbitration award, which directed the Board to appoint the PCTEA member with back pay, did not violate strong public policy or the New York Constitution. The court confirmed the original arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementInterventionPublic PolicyCivil Service LawPromotional PreferenceEligible ListAppellate ReviewVacatur of AwardConfirmation of Award
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1962

In re the Arbitration between Frank Chevrolet Corp. & Meyers

The petitioner appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 23, 1962. This initial order dismissed the petition, denied the petitioner's application for a stay of arbitration, and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration under a collective labor agreement. The petitioner also appealed from a second order, issued the same day, which granted a motion for reargument but ultimately adhered to the original decision. The appellate court affirmed the order entered on reargument, with costs, and dismissed the appeal from the original order, stating it was superseded.

ArbitrationCollective Labor AgreementStay of ArbitrationAppealReargumentOrder AffirmedWestchester County
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 30,702 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