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
Jun 30, 1989

Lange v. Sartorius, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which affirmed an arbitrators’ award in favor of the petitioner and denied the respondents’ cross-motion to vacate it. The dispute arose from the petitioner's termination of employment, which was submitted to arbitration as per their employment agreements. The arbitrators found that the respondents had not complied with the agreements and rendered a monetary award to the petitioner, considering his sudden departure. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards are given deference and are not subject to judicial review for merely erroneous factual findings unless completely irrational. Since the arbitrators' award was not irrational, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardVacatur of AwardEmployment DisputeJudicial Review of ArbitrationDeference to ArbitratorsIrrational FindingsNew York LawFederal LawAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Woods v. State University of New York

Norman Woods, a security services assistant at the State University of New York (SUNY), represented by the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (NYSCOPBA), received a notice of discipline and was placed on a one-year probation following an arbitration award in October 2013. His employment was terminated in June 2014, leading NYSCOPBA to file a grievance, which SUNY rejected. Petitioners commenced a proceeding to compel arbitration or annul the termination, but the Supreme Court converted it into a proceeding to confirm the arbitration award and seek clarification. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division determined that the Collective Bargaining Agreement's disciplinary provisions were ambiguous and could cover Woods' dismissal, thus the Supreme Court erred in not granting the petition to compel arbitration. The court found that the issue of whether the CBA governs Woods' dismissal should be decided by an arbitrator.

ArbitrationPublic EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DisciplineProbationary EmployeeGrievanceTaylor LawCivil Service LawCompel ArbitrationJudicial Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1987

M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. v. Cirillo

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. (petitioner) under CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petitioner's request and granted the respondent, George Medina's, cross-petition to confirm the award. M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. had discharged employee George Medina, alleging he "goofed off" and took excessive time during deliveries. The arbitrator concluded that M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. failed to prove just cause for the discharge, noting discrepancies in delivery records and deeming Medina's brief stop at Pitkin Avenue a de minimis breach. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards can only be vacated if the arbitrator acts irrationally, not merely due to mistakes of fact or law, which was not found in this instance. The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that Slavin lacked just cause for Medina's termination.

ArbitrationVacaturArbitration AwardJust CauseDischargeEmployment LawCPLR Article 75Judicial ReviewFactual ErrorLegal Error
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bart v. Miller

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order and judgment confirming an arbitration award. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order because the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment. The judgment itself was affirmed. The appellant's argument that the award violated strong public policy was unpreserved for appellate review. Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the arbitrators' award was not made in manifest disregard of the law or facts, as the appellant failed to identify any disregarded legal principle.

Arbitration AwardAppeal DismissedJudgment AffirmedPublic Policy ArgumentUnpreserved for ReviewManifest Disregard of LawCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewNassau County Supreme CourtArbitrators' Award
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rotating Components, Inc. & District 4, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Petitioner moved to confirm an arbitration award, while Respondent cross-moved to vacate it, alleging imperfect execution and lack of a mutual, final, and definite award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement from December 1959, and a supplementary agreement from January 1960, which stipulated the assignment of the main agreement to a local union within 18 months, with arbitration if the assignment failed. The arbitrator issued an interim award on September 21, 1961, instructing the union to assign the agreement within 30 days. Upon the union's failure, the arbitrator, on October 29, 1961, assigned the agreement to a new local union to be formed for the employees of Rotating Components, Inc. The court found the arbitrator's award to be within his express powers and rejected the objection regarding the finality and definiteness of the award. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the award and denied the respondent's cross-motion to vacate it.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingUnion AssignmentContract DisputeMotion to ConfirmMotion to VacateLabor DisputeJudicial ReviewInterim AwardFinality of Award
References
2
Case No. 267 AD2d 668
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1999

In re the Arbitration between Civil Service Employees Ass'n & State

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court concerning two proceedings. Proceeding No. 1, initiated by Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (CSEA) on behalf of Garmon Carnibucci, sought to confirm an arbitration award regarding the restoration of sick leave accruals for Carnibucci, who was terminated by the Division For Youth (DFY) under Civil Service Law § 71. Proceeding No. 2, commenced by Carnibucci, sought to hold DFY in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a prior judgment mandating back pay and benefits. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and found no contempt, prompting an appeal from the petitioners. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in proceeding No. 1, determining that CSEA was not an aggrieved party since the relief it sought (confirmation of the award) was granted. In proceeding No. 2, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no error in the appointment of a Referee to assess back pay calculations and concluding that DFY was not in contempt due to the lack of specificity in the prior judgment regarding the computation of back pay.

arbitration awardback pay disputesick leave accrualscontempt proceedingCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Civil Service Lawpublic employmentworkers' compensation boardjudicial review
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2013

Kingdon Capital Manangement v. Kaufman

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a prior arbitration award from June 28, 2012, which included a sum, prejudgment interest, costs, and disbursements. The respondent failed to demonstrate that the arbitrators exceeded their authority or manifestly disregarded the law. Furthermore, the respondent lacked a valid claim under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) due to a lack of timely assertion before the arbitrators. The arbitrators' decision to deny incentive compensation beyond the termination date and to not award attorneys' fees or modify the prejudgment interest rate was upheld. The appellant's remaining arguments were found to be without merit.

Arbitration AwardAffirmed JudgmentLabor LawIncentive CompensationPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesArbitrator PowersManifest Disregard of LawOral ModificationAppellate Review
References
7
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 Albany County Sheriffs Local 775 & County of Albany

This case concerns an appeal from an order that partially vacated an arbitration award. Jeffrey Stewart, a correction officer, was terminated after exhausting leave benefits due to a job injury. Upon medical clearance, he was reinstated with a probationary period and loss of seniority. His union (petitioner) grieved this, citing a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision guaranteeing seniority accrual during disability. The arbitrator denied seniority rights, but the Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate that part of the award. The appellate court affirmed, ruling the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA was unreasonable and impermissibly disregarded the clear terms regarding seniority for service-incurred disabilities.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority RightsMedical LeaveWorkplace InjuryEmployment LawArbitration Award VacaturContract InterpretationCPLR Article 78Appellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 9,457 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