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. 09-3356
Regular Panel Decision

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.)

This Revised Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding initiated by Placid Oil Company, a reorganized debtor from a 1980s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Placid sought a determination that post-confirmation tort claims, filed by the Williams Defendants (Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants) in Louisiana state court for asbestos exposure, were discharged by Placid's 1988 bankruptcy confirmation order. The claims arose from the death of Mrs. Myra Williams due to mesothelioma, allegedly caused by indirect asbestos exposure from her husband's work clothes while he was employed by Placid at its Black Lake Facility pre-confirmation. Applying the 'pre-petition relationship test,' the bankruptcy court found that Mrs. Williams' exposure constituted a pre-petition 'claim' and that the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants were 'unknown creditors.' Concluding that constructive notice via newspaper publication was sufficient for these unknown creditors and that appointing a future claims representative was not warranted, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Placid, discharging the tort claims.

Bankruptcy DischargeAsbestos ExposurePost-Confirmation ClaimsUnknown CreditorsDue Process NoticeSummary JudgmentPre-petition Relationship TestMesotheliomaTort LiabilityChapter 11 Reorganization
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Hart's Manufacturing Co.

Hart's Manufacturing Co., the Debtor-In-Possession, moved to set aside the auction sale of its Corning Property, asserting the proposed price was grossly inadequate and not in the best interest of creditors. The high bidder, Eagle Investment Corp., objected, arguing the sale should be confirmed. The auction, held pursuant to a confirmed plan of liquidation, resulted in Eagle's bid of $250,000. The property is subject to liens totaling $957,000. The Court denied confirmation of the sale, citing an expert appraisal valuing the property at $1.55 million. The Court concluded that the proposed sale price was grossly inadequate and would not maximize creditor recovery, as it would only partially satisfy one creditor and leave no funds for others.

Chapter 11Liquidation PlanAuction SaleProperty SaleConfirmation of SaleCreditor RecoveryInadequate PriceJudicial SalesSecured ClaimsUnsecured Claims
References
20
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C&D TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. International Ass'n of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

This case involves cross-motions to vacate and confirm a labor arbitration award. Plaintiff C & D Technologies sought to set aside an award where Arbitrator Sheila Cole found the company violated its collective bargaining agreement by changing the "six week average" pay calculation. Defendant Local sought to confirm the award. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, reviewed whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10(a)(4). The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, properly interpreted the ambiguous contract language, and her decision was rational. Consequently, the court denied the motion to set aside, granted the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationManifest Disregard for LawVacaturConfirmation of AwardSix Week Average PayWage Calculation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between M. Cohen Clothing Co. & Pascale

This case involves a motion filed by the petitioner, a subcontractor, seeking to confirm an arbitration award and obtain a money judgment against the respondents, who are manufacturers of men’s and boys’ clothing. The dispute originated from disagreements over workmanship of manufactured goods and the respondents' refusal to pay the final sum due, leading the petitioner to initiate arbitration proceedings. While the petitioner contended the respondents were bound by a collective bargaining agreement, the respondents asserted they were not signatories to the agreement and appeared voluntarily before the arbitrator solely to explain their position. The court, citing established precedents, ruled that a party cannot be compelled to arbitrate unless they have expressly agreed to it in writing. Since no such written agreement was demonstrated, the motion to confirm the arbitration award was denied.

ArbitrationSubcontractor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementVoluntary AppearanceWritten AgreementContract LawMotion DenialArbitration AwardConfirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Herman

This case involves a motion by Benjamin Herman, president of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, Local 333, to confirm an arbitration award against H. Fleisig, Inc., the employer. The arbitration stemmed from a collective labor agreement to determine hourly wage rates for employees. Objections to the award included the arbitrator's failure to acknowledge the award, alleged unfairness and personal investigation, and awards exceeding union demands. The court found the acknowledgment defect was cured, dismissed claims of unfairness due to lack of record, and addressed the arbitrator's personal investigation regarding one employee, Stanley Stuarz, by allowing an amendment to waive the increased wage for Stuarz. Ultimately, the motion to confirm the amended award was granted.

arbitrationwage disputecollective bargaining agreementarbitration awardconfirmation of awardarbitrator misconductCivil Practice Actwaiver of arbitrator oathpersonal investigation by arbitratoramendment of arbitration award
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2003

At & T Corp. v. Tyco Telecommunications (U.S.) Inc.

This order from District Judge Marrero confirms an arbitration award concerning a dispute between AT & T Corp. (as co-maintenance authority for TAT-10 submarine cable owners) and Tyco Telecommunications (U.S.) Inc. Tyco had previously admitted liability for severing the TAT-10 cable in 1998, leading to an arbitration panel awarding the Cable Owners $5,798,075.83 plus interest. Tyco sought to vacate this award, challenging the Panel's legal interpretations regarding a private cause of action under the Cable Convention, the common ownership doctrine, and the inclusion of annual restoration costs as damages. The Court reviewed Tyco's claims for legal error and insufficient discovery, applying a rigorous standard for disturbing arbitration awards. Ultimately, the judge rejected all of Tyco's arguments, finding no manifest disregard of the law or denial of fundamental fairness by the arbitration panel, and confirmed the award in its entirety.

ArbitrationSubmarine CableTelecommunicationsDamagesManifest Disregard of LawStandard of ReviewCable ConventionCable ActLoss of UseRestoration Costs
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 140, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. P.C.R. Sportswear Corp.

The Union, Local 140, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO, filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award against P.C.R. Sportswear Corp. The dispute arose from P.C.R.'s failure to comply with a collective bargaining agreement after selling its shop. P.C.R. opposed the petition, citing lack of jurisdiction, impossibility of performance, arbitrator partiality, and misconduct for refusing material evidence. Judge Werker found P.C.R.'s arguments baseless, affirming the arbitrator's jurisdiction and proper conduct. The court granted the petition, confirming the arbitration award against P.C.R. for unpaid wages, holiday pay, and benefit fund contributions.

arbitration award confirmationcollective bargaining agreement enforcementunion litigationemployer liability for contract breacharbitrator jurisdiction challengeimpossibility of performance defensearbitrator impartiality disputemisconduct of arbitrator claimfederal court jurisdictionlabour law dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2007

Buffalo Teachers Federation, Inc. v. Board of Education

This case involves an appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award stemming from a dispute between a petitioner and the City School District of the City of Buffalo. The dispute began when the District unilaterally altered health insurance providers, violating a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). An arbitrator found the District in violation and ordered reinstatement of laid-off teachers. The Supreme Court initially confirmed the award. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the court affirmed the part of the award concerning the CBA violation but vacated the part mandating teacher reinstatement, finding the arbitrator exceeded his authority by granting a benefit not explicitly in the CBA.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementHealth Insurance BenefitsTeacher LayoffsArbitrator AuthorityPublic PolicyJudgment ModificationErie CountyUnilateral Contract ChangeLabor Dispute
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,272 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