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
Dec 03, 1999

Werner Enterprises Co. v. New York City Law Department

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the denial of petitioner's motion to vacate two arbitration awards. The court found that the proceeding was initiated more than 90 days after the petitioner received the awards, thus failing to comply with the time limitation set forth in CPLR 7511(a). The court rejected the argument that the 90-day time limit could be waived even if the vacatur was sought on grounds under CPLR 7511(b)(2), referencing CPLR 201.

Arbitration Award VacaturCPLR Article 7590-Day RuleTimeliness of ApplicationAffirmance on AppealProcedural Due ProcessJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1992

Town of Newburgh v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n

This case involves an appeal concerning an arbitration award related to a collective bargaining agreement. The petitioner sought to vacate an arbitrator's award that mandated salary increases for incumbent typist employees to match a new hire's salary rate. The respondent, Civil Service Employees Association, cross-petitioned to confirm the award. The Supreme Court denied the petition and confirmed the award. On appeal, the judgment was modified; the appellate court vacated the portion of the arbitration award concerning the specific salary increase and remitted the matter to the arbitrator. The court affirmed that the timeliness of a grievance is an arbitrator's domain but found the arbitrator exceeded authority by fashioning a remedy outside the collective bargaining agreement's explicit limitations. The case was remitted for a modified award consistent with the agreement's terms.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementSalary DisputeExceeding AuthorityProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewContractual LimitationsGrievance ProcedureTypist SalariesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1993

In re the Arbitration between Spinex Laboratories, Inc. & Patton

Petitioners, a diagnostic laboratory and a licensed chiropractor, appealed an order denying their application to vacate an arbitration award. They had provided testing and treatment services, including the use of a "MedX" machine, to an injured worker, Russell Shafer, for which respondent State Insurance Fund, the workers' compensation carrier, refused payment. The Chiropractic Practice Committee, to which the matter was referred by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge, disallowed the entire contested amount, finding the MedX services unnecessary. Petitioners argued the Committee exceeded its authority by determining necessity rather than just value. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that "value" under the Workers' Compensation Law encompasses medical necessity and appropriateness, and the Committee's determination that the services were unnecessary had a rational basis, especially considering Shafer was no longer disabled and the nature of the treatments.

Arbitration Award VacaturWorkers' Compensation CarrierChiropractic Care ReimbursementMedical Necessity DisputeWorkers' Compensation Law InterpretationFee ReasonablenessAppellate DivisionSupreme Court OrderCPLR Article 75 ReviewMedX Machine Treatment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Massena Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order that vacated an arbitration award concerning a custodian, Eric Fetterly. Fetterly, an employee of the petitioner and a member of the respondent union, filed three grievances after an on-the-job injury, disputing his vacation credits, sick leave, and a disciplinary letter. The arbitrator found in Fetterly's favor on all three issues. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, finding the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The appellate court modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing its decision to vacate the arbitrator's determinations on grievances two and three, while affirming the vacatur of the first grievance.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceVacation CreditsSick LeaveDisciplinary ActionArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation LeavePublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2002

Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of Newburgh, New York, Inc. v. City of Newburgh

In a proceeding to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioners appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which denied their petition and confirmed the award. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, stating that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any valid basis to vacate the arbitration award, citing CPLR 7511 and previous cases. The Supreme Court's decision to deny the petition and confirm the award was deemed proper.

Arbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate DivisionSupreme CourtOrange CountyJudgment AffirmedBurden of ProofProcedural Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Brown & State Farm Insurance

Supreme Court erred in modifying the arbitration award. State Farm contended that the arbitrator’s award should be reduced by the total amount of workers’ compensation benefits received by Robert Brown. However, this contention would not entitle State Farm to vacatur or modification of the award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) or (c). Therefore, the order and judgment were reversed, the petition denied, motion granted, and award confirmed.

Arbitration LawWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAward ModificationAppellate ReviewCPLR 7511Insurance DisputeSupreme Court ErrorUnanimous Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Cady & Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

The case concerns the validity of a New York State Insurance Department regulation limiting the time to commence a proceeding under CPLR article 75. The regulation set a 51-day period to challenge a master arbitrator's award under the No-Fault Insurance Law. The lower courts and the Court of Appeals found this regulation invalid, as it conflicted with the 90-day limitations period provided by CPLR 7511 (subd [a]). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, confirming the invalidity of the regulation.

regulation validityNo-Fault Insurance LawCPLR Article 75arbitration awardstatutory limitationsadministrative lawNew York Court of AppealsInsurance Departmentmaster arbitratorjudicial review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. GEICO General Insurance

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied a petition to vacate an arbitration award dated November 1, 2010. The appellate court determined that the arbitrator's award was supported by evidence and rationally based, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate arbitrator bias or misconduct. Consequently, the appellate court modified the Supreme Court's order by adding a provision to confirm the arbitration award pursuant to CPLR 7511 (e). As modified, the order was affirmed, with costs payable by the petitioner.

ArbitrationVacatur of AwardAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 75Arbitrator ImpartialityEvidentiary SupportRational BasisConfirmation of AwardJudicial ReviewNew York Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2005

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Millenium Management, Inc.

The corporate defendants appealed an order denying their motion to vacate an arbitration award, which was entered by the Supreme Court, New York County, on July 29, 2005. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed this decision, finding that the arbitration panel's interpretation of a setoff-barring provision was neither in 'manifest disregard of the law' nor 'totally irrational.' Furthermore, the court concluded that the arbitrators did not exceed their statutory powers as per CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]. All remaining arguments by the corporate defendants were found unavailing.

ArbitrationVacate awardAppellate reviewCourt orderStatutory interpretationJudicial powerPanel decisionNew York lawCPLRAffirmation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 38 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