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 Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between Cortland County & CSEA, Inc.

Petitioners, Cortland County Sheriff and Cortland County, were parties to a collective bargaining agreement with an unnamed respondent union. A correction officer, Lawrence Jackson, was placed on family and medical leave due to a work restriction related to plantar fasciitis, preventing him from working mandatory overtime. The respondent union filed a grievance alleging a violation of the CBA, which petitioners denied, leading the respondent to demand arbitration. Petitioners then sought to permanently stay arbitration, but the Supreme Court denied their application and compelled arbitration. On appeal, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the dispute arbitrable as it related to the CBA's provisions on work schedules, overtime, and light-duty assignments, and no public policy considerations prohibited arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork RestrictionMandatory OvertimeDisability BenefitsPlantar FasciitisGrievanceStay of ArbitrationAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
15
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 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 the Arbitration between Windsor Central School District & Windsor Teachers Ass'n

The Windsor Central School District (District) and the Windsor Teachers Association (Association) had a collective bargaining agreement. The Association filed grievances for guidance counselors assigned study hall duties, claiming a violation of section 11.3 (e) of their agreement. An arbitrator ruled in favor of the Association, citing the District's past practice of not assigning guidance counselors to study halls. The District and Superintendent of Schools petitioned the Supreme Court to vacate the award, which was granted on the grounds that the arbitrator exceeded their authority by relying on past practice. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that arbitrators can indeed rely on past practice to interpret collective bargaining agreements and did not exceed their authority in this case.

Collective bargaining agreementArbitration awardVacaturPast practiceArbitrator authorityGrievanceEducation lawTeachers' unionAppellate reviewScope of arbitration
References
6
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

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
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

Inner City Broadcasting Corp. v. American Federation of Television

Inner City Broadcasting Corp. (Inner) owns radio stations WBLS and WLIB, while AFTRA is the labor union representing their artists. A dispute arose when Inner hired Irving Lewis, a former AFTRA official with a non-competition agreement, as its bargaining representative. AFTRA initiated arbitration, claiming Inner breached its duty to negotiate in good faith. Inner then sued in New York Supreme Court, seeking to declare the dispute non-arbitrable and to stay arbitration, a case AFTRA removed to federal court. The District Court denied Inner's motions to dismiss the removal petition and stay arbitration, finding it had jurisdiction and that the duty to arbitrate survived the contract's expiration and alleged waiver. The court granted AFTRA's cross-motion to compel arbitration and dismissed Inner's complaint, holding that the merits of Inner's arguments were for the arbitrator to decide.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNon-competition ClauseFederal JurisdictionRemoval PetitionStay ArbitrationGood Faith NegotiationContract Interpretation
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,344 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