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 Herman & New York City Transit Authority

The petitioners sought to vacate an arbitration award issued by Theodore Kheel, the impartial chairman of the transit industry. Their grievance concerned work pick rules which they claimed violated their seniority status and previous agreements between the Authority and its employees' unions. The arbitrator had denied their grievance, leading the petitioners to allege partiality and misbehavior on his part for consulting the Transport Workers Union. The court, however, found no basis for these charges, noting the informal nature of the arbitration and the arbitrator's prerogative to seek the union's opinion given the potential impact on other employees. Ultimately, the court concluded there was no impartiality or misbehavior and dismissed the petition to vacate the award.

arbitration awardvacate awardpartialitymisbehaviorwork rulesseniority rightsunion agreementgrievanceimpartial chairmanTransit Authority
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

Candor Central School District v. American Arbitration Ass'n

The Candor Central School District (the district) applied to the court for an order restraining the American Arbitration Association (AAA) from proceeding with arbitration. This application was made while a CPLR 7503 proceeding to stay arbitration, involving the district and the Candor Faculty Association, was pending in another court. The district argued against the need for a temporary restraining order in the CPLR 7503 proceeding, citing judicial time and client costs. The AAA countered that its impartiality would be compromised if it were named an adverse party and stressed the importance of proceeding with arbitration unless explicitly stayed by stipulation or court order. The court ultimately denied the district's application, concluding that restraining the AAA was inappropriate and advising the district to seek relief within the pending CPLR 7503 proceeding.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCPLR 7503American Arbitration Association (AAA)Injunctive ReliefJudicial InterventionArbitration RulesCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial RestraintProcedural Law
References
5
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

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
Jun 11, 1973

In re the Arbitration between Yorktown Sportswear Co. & Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

The case involves a small garment manufacturer, the petitioner, who sought to relocate operations from New York City to Florida, violating a collective bargaining agreement with the New York Joint Board. An impartial chairman, the designated arbitrator, issued awards directing workers to return to employment, ordering the employer to cease relocation activities, and later found the employer violated an injunction, ordering a $25,000 bond for damages. Special Term concluded arbitrator misconduct, warranting a replacement. The Supreme Court modified the judgment, deleting the provision for a court-appointed arbitrator and returning all disputes to the impartial chairman for a final and binding award, affirming the judgment as modified. The court found no warrant for removing the impartial chairman, noting that his awards were non-final, incomplete, and vacatable under CPLR 7511.

collective bargainingarbitration disputeplant relocationinjunctionarbitrator authoritycontract violationCPLR 7511labor lawSupreme Court decisionjudgment modification
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Jandrew & County of Cortland

Petitioner, a County of Cortland employee, was terminated for failing to maintain a valid driver's license and for failing to disclose a prior conviction on job applications. The petitioner's grievance was submitted to binding arbitration, resulting in an award for reinstatement with back pay and benefits. The County appealed the Supreme Court's order confirming the arbitration award, arguing issues of arbitrability, the arbitrator exceeding authority, and public policy violations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the County waived its right to contest arbitrability by participating in arbitration and that the arbitrator's decision did not exceed authority or violate public policy.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceEmployee TerminationDriver's LicenseUndisclosed ConvictionArbitrabilityPublic PolicyWaiverCivil Service Law
References
21
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,034 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