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. 95 CIV. 0004 (LMM)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between Standard Tallow Corp. & Kil-Management A/S

The petitioner sought to compel arbitration in New York City concerning damages to goods shipped by the respondent from New York to Barcelona, Spain. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties which contained two conflicting arbitration clauses: one in Part I mandating arbitration in London, and another in Part II requiring arbitration in New York. The court, presided over by District Judge Motley, interpreted the contract, specifically a preamble stating that Part I provisions prevail over Part II in case of conflict, and also considered that the London clause was in the "typewritten" portion of the agreement, which typically holds precedence. Citing federal contract law and similar maritime contract cases, the court concluded that the London arbitration clause controls the location of arbitration. Consequently, the petition to compel arbitration in New York was denied, although no order was issued to compel arbitration in London as the respondent did not file a cross-petition.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActChoice of ForumMaritime LawConflicting ClausesContractual PrecedenceLondon ArbitrationNew York ArbitrationJudicial Review
References
26
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 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
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 Fitzgerald & General Electric Co.

This case involves a petition to compel arbitration stemming from a dispute where the respondent opted to subcontract janitorial services instead of using its own employees, a decision challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the dispute fell under an arbitration clause in their collective bargaining agreement, specifically citing the 'Union Recognition' article. However, the court found that the dispute did not involve the interpretation or application of any agreement provision, noting that the subcontracting issue had been explicitly rejected during agreement negotiations. The court also clarified that Civil Practice Act section 1448-a, while precluding inquiry into the merits of a dispute, does not divest the court of its role to determine the scope of an arbitration agreement. Furthermore, the agreement itself stipulated that arbitration could only proceed after a court determined the arbitrability of issues, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingManagement PrerogativeArbitrabilityScope of Arbitration ClauseContract InterpretationUnion RecognitionCourt's Role in ArbitrationLabor Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between Carborundum Co. & Wagner

The court affirmed an order that granted a stay to the petitioner in arbitration proceedings. Additionally, the order denied a motion made by the unions to compel the petitioner to proceed with arbitration. The decision included an award of $10 costs and disbursements. All judges concurred with the ruling.

arbitrationstay of proceedingsmotion practicecosts and disbursementspanel decision
References
0
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

In re the Arbitration between Stowe & Aircooled Motors, Inc.

This case involves a motion to compel arbitration under section 1450 of the Civil Practice Act, related to the discharge of Gerald Mersfelder. A cross-motion was filed to dismiss the application. The court addressed preliminary objections regarding the local union's standing as a contracting party, affirming its involvement. It was determined that the arbitration clause was limited and did not cover all disputes, particularly unfair labor practices which fall under the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdiction. The court also considered its own jurisdiction under the Civil Practice Act, noting that the controversy arose before amendments broadening the scope of arbitrable subjects took effect. Ultimately, the court found no basis for arbitration as the grievance did not involve the interpretation or application of the contract's provisions.

ArbitrationLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJurisdictionCivil Practice ActMotion to CompelMotion to DismissUnion RightsContract Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Buffalo, N. Y., Inc. & Mordino

The order of Erie Special Term, which granted a petitioner's motion for a stay of arbitration and denied a cross motion to compel arbitration and other relief, was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court also awarded $10 in costs and disbursements. The decision was unanimous, with Justices McCurn, Vaughan, Williams, Bastow, and Goldman presiding.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationMotion to Compel ArbitrationAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsUnanimous DecisionErie Special Term
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniel Mendivil v. Zanios Foods, Inc.

Daniel Mendivil, a former delivery-truck driver for Zanios Foods, Inc., appealed a trial court's decision to compel arbitration after his employment was terminated following an injury. Mendivil challenged the Arbitration Policy Statement (APS), arguing it was invalid due to lack of consideration, being illusory, and unconscionable. The appellate court examined the APS, a stand-alone arbitration agreement, and found that Zanios had not made mutual, binding promises to arbitrate its own disputes or be bound by arbitration results. Therefore, the court concluded that the APS lacked the necessary consideration, rendering it an illusory contract. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order compelling arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementIllusory PromiseLack of ConsiderationContract FormationEmployment DisputeTexas Labor CodeFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewMutuality of ObligationAt-Will Employment
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 2,986 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