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
Jan 17, 2006

Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of the City of New York, Inc. v. District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, affirming an earlier arbitrator’s award. The judgment, entered on January 17, 2006, by Justice Michael D. Stallman, confirmed an arbitrator's award dated September 2, 2004. The petitioners, who were not parties to the original arbitration between District Council 37 and the City of New York, sought to vacate this award. The court determined that the petitioners lacked standing, either statutorily or under common law, to seek the vacatur. Their claims of potential harm were deemed too speculative, especially since there was no evidence suggesting that any of their members would face layoffs or demotions as a result of the award. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the petition was unanimously affirmed by the appellate court.

Arbitration AwardStandingVacatur PetitionAppellate ReviewNew York LawSupreme CourtLabor DisputeDismissalAffirmed JudgmentCPLR
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2006

County of Westchester v. Doyle

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, that had denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The original order confirmed the award and directed interest on compensation for William Leverance's out-of-title work to be calculated from August 20, 2004. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial to vacate the arbitration award, determining that the award did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator's authority. However, the order was modified to direct that interest on the award be calculated from September 9, 2005, the date of the award, instead of August 20, 2004. All other contentions raised by the appellant were found to be without merit.

arbitrationawardvacaturCPLR Article 75out-of-title workinterest calculationappellate reviewjudicial modificationWestchester Countypublic policy
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 100, Transport Workers Union v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted a petition to vacate an arbitration award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement between the parties concerning expedited arbitration of safety issues related to "One Person Train Operation" (OPTO). When the petitioner refused to agree to hearing dates without discovery, the respondent filed a grievance, leading to a ruling by an Impartial Arbitrator directing adherence to scheduled dates. The Supreme Court initially vacated this arbitration award, but the appellate court reversed, holding that courts lack jurisdiction to review interlocutory arbitration decisions and can only intervene after a final determination in the arbitration proceeding.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceExpedited ArbitrationOne Person Train OperationJurisdictionInterlocutory DecisionAppellate ReviewCPLRVacatur of Award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1993

Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 v. New York City Transit Authority

The petitioner appealed an order from Kings County Supreme Court, dated December 20, 1993, which dismissed their petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the respondent's cross-application. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Supreme Court correctly found the arbitration award was not irrational. Additionally, the court determined that the award did not violate public policy. This decision was supported by references to established case law.

ArbitrationVacaturCPLR Article 75Judicial ReviewPublic PolicyIrrational AwardKings CountyAppellate CourtArbitration AwardSupreme Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2009

New York Racing Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The petitioner sought to vacate an arbitration award dated June 12, 2009, claiming it violated public policy. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petition, confirmed the award, and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the order was affirmed. The court determined that neither Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 206 (4) and (5) absolutely prohibited the arbitrator's decision, nor did the award itself violate these laws, applying a two-prong public policy test. The court also noted that a previously agreed deferred prosecution agreement had expired and the respondent was not a party to it.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardRacing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding LawDeferred Prosecution AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewNassau CountySupreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2013

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Sergeants Benevolent Ass'n

The Supreme Court of New York County affirmed an arbitration award dated February 11, 2013, which found that the petitioner violated a collective bargaining agreement by eliminating free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed authority, as the agreement incorporated a 1973 instruction granting lifetime EZ-Pass privileges to retirees. The court further clarified that the contractual phrase "in accordance with applicable law" refers to the binding nature of the arbitral award, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law. The decision was made by Justice Cynthia S. Kern and was unanimously concurred by the appellate panel.

Collective bargaining agreementE-Z Pass privilegesArbitration awardRetired employeesJudicial reviewArbitrator authorityContract interpretationLabor disputeMemorandum of AgreementAppellate Division concurrence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Wagner & Russeks Fifth Avenue, Inc.

The court denied a motion to confirm an arbitration award due to improper acknowledgment under Civil Practice Act § 1460. The respondent's cross-motion to vacate the award was granted. While arguments regarding exhausted arbitrator powers and excessive damages were rejected, the court found the arbitrator guilty of "misbehavior" under Civil Practice Act § 1462(3) due to an unreasonable delay in rendering the decision. This delay, from March 3 to August 20, 1948, prejudiced the employer by awarding substantial back pay to a rightfully discharged employee for a period largely covered by the arbitrator's inaction. The matter was remitted to the arbitrator for a rehearing to reassess back pay, which should not extend beyond the date a prompt decision was due.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationAward VacaturCivil Practice ActArbitrator MisconductUndue DelayLabor AgreementBack PayDeed AcknowledgmentReal Property Law
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Proulx v. Burnett Process

This case involves appeals from four decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning the application of amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (w) and 27 (2). The core issue is whether the mandatory deposit of Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) awards into the aggregate trust fund (ATF) under amended § 27 (2) applies retroactively to injuries sustained before the amendment's effective date of March 13, 2007, when the PPD awards themselves were made after July 1, 2007. The carriers argued against retroactive application and claimed that mandating lump-sum payments for uncapped PPD awards was speculative and violated equal protection rights. The Board, and subsequently the Appellate Division, affirmed the decisions, holding that the relevant date for applying the amendment to § 27 (2) is the date of the award, not the date of the accident, and that the calculations are not speculative as present value is legislatively mandated.

Workers' Compensation LawAggregate Trust FundPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationEqual ProtectionLump-Sum PaymentsAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPresent Value
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 1989

Richardson v. Hetelekides

The Workers' Compensation Board imposed a 20% penalty on Insurance Company of North America, the carrier for employer Savos Hetelekides, for late payment of a $1,125 award to the claimant. The carrier argued that the 10-day payment period for compensation awards should commence upon its receipt of the notice of award, not the filing date. However, both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed the penalty, stating that no extra time is allowed for mailing and the period begins from the notice's filing date. The employer and carrier appealed this determination to the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that the 10-day period for payment of a compensation award commences on the date of filing of the notice of award.

Workers' CompensationPenalty for Late PaymentLate Payment of Award10-Day Payment PeriodNotice of AwardFiling Date vs. Receipt DateAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmedInsurance Carrier LiabilityEmployer Appeal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 8,971 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