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 the Arbitration between State Laundry Corp. & Laundry Workers Joint Board

The respondent sought to open a default on a motion to confirm an arbitration award, which was granted on November 29, 1960. The respondent's attorney was informed of the default on November 28, 1960, and was served with the order on December 13, 1960. Despite this, the motion to open the default was not filed until February 21, 1960, nearly three months later, with the only explanation being an unspecified family death. The court denied the motion, finding the excuse for the significant delay insufficient and the respondent's affidavit of merits lacking in facts necessary to vacate or modify the award. The court also affirmed that a party who participated in arbitration cannot claim the arbitrator exceeded authority, and judicial intervention is unwarranted for factual or legal errors if the arbitrator had jurisdiction.

ArbitrationDefault JudgmentMotion PracticeExcuse for DelayAffidavit of MeritsJurisdictionJudicial Review of Arbitration AwardsCivil Practice ActArbitrator AuthorityDenial of Motion
References
2
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

In re the Arbitration Between County of Ulster & Ulster County Sheriff's Employees Ass'n

Elíseo Baldizzi, a correction officer with Ulster County Sheriffs Department, sought General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits for an illness he claimed was work-related. After his claim was denied, the respondent initiated arbitration, resulting in an award in Baldizzi’s favor. Petitioners, the Ulster County Sheriffs Department and County of Ulster, then commenced a CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it violated public policy by not establishing a clear link between the illness and duties. The Supreme Court denied their motion and confirmed the award, agreeing with the arbitrator's finding that Baldizzi's illness was directly traceable to an incident during his employment. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no valid basis to disturb the arbitrator's award, as the arbitrator had indeed found a direct causal link.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCorrection OfficerIllnessDuty-Related Illness
References
3
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 Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between George Rattray & Co. & Trenz

Petitioner, George Battray & Company, Inc., sought to stay arbitration demanded by the respondent union following the sale of its assets by Hardwick, Hindle, Inc. (its parent company) to Instruments for Industry, Inc. and the subsequent termination of all employees. The union raised nine issues for arbitration, later reducing them to six. The court analyzed whether these disputes were arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, which required disputes to arise under the agreement and concern its interpretation. The court found that the union failed to present sufficient evidentiary facts to establish an arbitrable dispute regarding the employer's good faith in terminating business, plant relocation, lockout, or the obligation for the purchaser to assume the collective bargaining agreement. However, the court determined that an arbitrable dispute existed concerning the 'floating' holiday pay, as the right to this pay accrued on the first day of the year. The stay of arbitration was granted for all issues except the 'floating' holiday pay.

arbitration staycollective bargaining agreementemployee terminationasset saleunion disputegood faith business terminationarbitrabilityfloating holiday paysuccessor clause interpretationlabor law
References
35
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01785
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2017

Henvill v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Winston Henvill appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his petition to vacate an arbitration award, which resulted in the termination of his employment. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion to dismiss Henvill's complaint and denied his petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award based on a finding of misconduct. Henvill argued that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Benevolent Association (PBA) breached its duty of fair representation and that the arbitrator's fact-finding was irrational. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no evidence that the PBA's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Furthermore, the court emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to statutory grounds and does not permit reviewing the arbitrator's findings of fact.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationArbitration AwardEmployment TerminationMisconductCPLR Article 75Vacatur of Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
12
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 Board of Education & Moore

This case involves an appeal by an unnamed petitioner (employer) seeking to vacate an arbitration award in Otsego County. The dispute originated from a grievance filed by Anthony Moore, a custodial worker, concerning his transfer to a new assignment. Moore's grievance was denied at earlier steps, leading the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) to move it to arbitration. The petitioner contended that the grievance was time-barred due to Moore's late filing and CSEA's late referral to arbitration. The arbitrator rejected these arguments, deeming the grievance arbitrable. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's application to vacate this arbitration award, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, finding the arbitrator's determination to be rational and within their authority.

Arbitration AwardGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementTimeliness DisputeVacate Arbitration AwardCPLR 7511Public Sector EmploymentCustodial WorkerEmployee TransferJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Carey & Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves cross-appeals from an order of Special Term concerning the arbitration of discharge grievances in Buffalo and furlough grievances in Sharon under a collective bargaining agreement. The Special Term had denied arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances, which the appellate court found to be a misconception of the court's role in arbitration. The appellate court emphasized that only the existence of an agreement to arbitrate and a dispute thereunder should be considered, leaving matters of law and fact to the arbitrators. The court also deemed the question of public policy overriding arbitration rules premature. Regarding the Sharon furlough claims, the Special Term's decision to compel arbitration was affirmed, with the appellate court rejecting claims of Federal preemption. The final order was modified to grant the petitioner's motion to compel arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances and affirmed in all other respects.

ArbitrationCollective BargainingLabor DisputeDischarge GrievancesFurlough GrievancesCross-AppealSpecial Term OrderPublic PolicyFederal PreemptionAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 18,024 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