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
Oct 31, 2013

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement between a wealthy plaintiff (husband) and a defendant (wife). The defendant challenged the agreement, alleging overreaching and manifest unfairness during negotiations, while the plaintiff sought its enforcement. Although the motion court granted a trial on the maintenance waiver, it dismissed other counterclaims. Justice Feinman's dissent argues that summary judgment should be denied for all counterclaims, emphasizing the need for a full trial to assess the credibility of the parties and resolve material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's conduct during negotiations and the agreement's potentially unfair terms, particularly highlighting the distinct legal standard of 'manifest unfairness' in marital agreements.

prenuptial agreementmarital agreementsummary judgmentunconscionabilitymanifest unfairnessoverreachingfiduciary dutyequitable distributionspousal maintenance waiverproperty distribution
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Reif & Williams Sportswear, Inc.

This case addresses whether a corporation is bound by an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement ratified by its predecessor partnership. The petitioner, Local 169 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, initiated arbitration against the respondent, Williams Sportswear Co., Inc., for defaulting on payments to employee funds. The corporation, formed by the same partners who ran the predecessor partnership, continued the same business in the same location and sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was not a party to the agreement. While the Special Term denied the stay, the Appellate Division reversed, absolving the corporation of the obligation. The higher court, however, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the corporation acts as an 'alter ego' of the original promoters and is thus bound by the collective bargaining agreement, emphasizing that a change in corporate form does not negate pre-existing contractual obligations when the underlying business remains unchanged. Therefore, arbitration was deemed enforceable.

Arbitration AgreementCollective Bargaining AgreementCorporate LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSuccessor EmployerStay of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionCorporate FormationContractual ObligationsUnion Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Heights—West Harlem—Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU

This District Court opinion addresses motions by the Washington Heights Mental Health Council to amend its complaint and by District 1199 to enforce an arbitration award. Previously, the court vacated an award reinstating Edward Lane with back pay, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. The court now finds an oral collective bargaining agreement existed, generally requiring enforcement of the arbitration award. However, new serious allegations against Lane, if proven, could justify discharge. A strong public policy against reinstating a mental health worker accused of sexually molesting patients warrants staying his reinstatement pending arbitration of these new claims. Despite this, the court orders the Council to comply with the back pay portion of the arbitration award, finding no public policy violation in that aspect.

Arbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementBack PayReinstatement StayedSexual Misconduct AllegationsPublic Policy ExceptionLabor DisputeAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRemand Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2012

Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA.

Justice Gische dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that arbitrators, not the court, should determine the enforceability of payment agreements containing arbitration clauses in workers' compensation cases. The dissent highlights that the payment agreements were not filed with the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (WCIRB), an issue the insureds use to invalidate the arbitration provisions. Citing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Supreme Court precedent, Gische, J. contends that challenges to the contract as a whole should be decided by arbitrators. Furthermore, the dissent disagrees with the majority's application of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, asserting that California law does not prohibit arbitration in insurance disputes and that arbitration does not undermine filing requirements. The dissent critiques the Ceradyne decision as inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings on severability and arbitrability.

Arbitration ClausesArbitrabilityFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCalifornia Insurance CodeContract EnforceabilityGateway IssuesDissenting OpinionJudicial Review
References
17
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00081 [212 AD3d 607]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2023

Merritt v. Wynder

Richard Merritt, an attorney, brought an action against Kenneth Wynder and the Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA) to recover legal fees, rental arrears, litigation expenses, and an unpaid loan. Merritt had previously represented Wynder in employment matters and LEEBA as its primary attorney and landlord. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed Merritt's complaint following a nonjury trial, concluding that he had failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Merritt subsequently appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the clerk's judgment. The appellate court found that Merritt did not demonstrate his entitlement to legal fees due to ambiguities in the fee agreement, and his claims for rental arrears and the unpaid loan were deemed time-barred and lacked sufficient proof of acknowledgment. Claims for litigation fees and workers' compensation fees were also rejected, citing agreement ambiguity, absence of proof, and non-compliance with Workers' Compensation Board approval requirements.

Legal Fees DisputeBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsAttorney-Client AgreementAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialWorkers' Compensation ClaimRental ArrearsUnpaid LoanEvidence Preponderance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 1994

New York Air Brake Corp. v. General Signal Corp.

This case addresses a labor dispute concerning employee transfer rights between New York Air Brake Corporation and several unions (Local 761 and Local 761A), along with General Signal Corporation. Following an arbitration award that was not fully satisfactory to all parties, a settlement known as the 'Good Friday Agreement' was reached to modify and implement the award. Defendant Local 761 later objected to the enforcement of this agreement, raising questions about the court's jurisdiction and the parties' authority to settle. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, finding that the parties had the legal capacity to enter into an oral settlement agreement, which was enforceable, and thus approved the Good Friday Agreement, denying the motions to confirm the original arbitration award or remand to the arbitrator.

Labor DisputeSettlement EnforcementArbitration ReviewCollective Bargaining AgreementContract LawFederal Court JurisdictionOral SettlementEmployee RightsUnion RepresentationGrievance Resolution
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212 v. WPIX, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between the Radio and Television Broadcast Engineers Union and WPIX, Inc., regarding the enforcement of an arbitration award. The award, rendered on February 20, 1986, found that WPIX violated a collective bargaining agreement by refusing to reinstate Joseph Tomaselli, a Union Business Representative who had taken a leave of absence. WPIX sought to vacate the award, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his authority by looking beyond the agreement's express terms regarding the two-year leave limit. The District Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, concluding that the arbitrator was within his authority to consider the parties' conduct as evidence of a mutual modification of the agreement, even when the agreement's express language was clear. The court granted the Union's motion for summary judgment to enforce the award and denied WPIX's cross-motion to vacate, ordering Tomaselli's reinstatement with back pay and benefits.

Labor DisputeArbitration EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementLeave of AbsenceContract InterpretationMutual Contract ModificationSummary JudgmentJudicial Review of Arbitration AwardsIndustrial Common LawNational Labor Relations Act
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sprint Communications Co. v. Jasco Trading, Inc.

The case involves Plaintiffs Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Boost Worldwide, Inc., and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (collectively 'Sprint') against Defendants Jasco Trading, Inc., Alan Savdie, YRB Trading Corp., and Yehudah Bodek. Plaintiffs initiated the action alleging various claims including breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, stemming from an alleged 'Bulk Handset Trafficking Scheme.' The court considered two primary motions: Plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement agreement with the YRB Defendants and the YRB Defendants' motion to stay the case pending arbitration. Applying the Winston factors, the Court determined that no binding settlement agreement was reached, citing an implied reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a signed writing, disagreement on a material term, and the nature of such agreements typically requiring formalization. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement. The YRB Defendants' motion to stay for arbitration was also denied, but without prejudice, due to their denial of knowledge regarding the arbitration agreement and insufficient briefing on the merits.

Contract LawSettlement EnforceabilityOral AgreementsWinston FactorsArbitration ClauseMotion to EnforceMotion to StayBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionTrademark Infringement
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marciano v. DCH Auto Group

Plaintiff Lucia Marciano sued DCH Auto Group, Brian Lam, and Bernard Fee alleging workplace discrimination under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and New York’s Human Rights Law. Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement Marciano signed during her employment application. Marciano challenged the agreement's enforceability, claiming lack of assent, illusory promise, absence of consideration, and prohibitive arbitration costs. The court found Marciano's arguments unconvincing, concluding that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, but denied their request for attorneys' fees.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawMotion to Compel ArbitrationContract LawAssentConsiderationUnconscionability
References
63
Showing 1-10 of 2,822 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