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
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
Feb 17, 1989

Gaspard v. American Transit Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order and judgment that confirmed a July 19, 1987 arbitrator’s award and a December 28, 1987 master arbitrator’s award. The respondent’s application for a trial de novo was denied, and the petitioner was awarded judgment including principal, interest, attorneys’ fees, and disbursements, totaling $66,443.42. The respondent argued that interest was improperly calculated and that proof of claim was never properly filed, contentions raised for the first time on a motion for reargument which was denied and not appealed. The appellate court found these arguments precluded by the respondent’s failure to raise them in a timely appeal to the master arbitrator and affirmed the lower court's decision.

Arbitrator's AwardTrial De NovoInterest CalculationWorkers' Compensation ClaimsTimeliness of AppealReargumentAppellate ReviewCPLR 7510Master ArbitratorProof of Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2013

Kingdon Capital Manangement v. Kaufman

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a prior arbitration award from June 28, 2012, which included a sum, prejudgment interest, costs, and disbursements. The respondent failed to demonstrate that the arbitrators exceeded their authority or manifestly disregarded the law. Furthermore, the respondent lacked a valid claim under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) due to a lack of timely assertion before the arbitrators. The arbitrators' decision to deny incentive compensation beyond the termination date and to not award attorneys' fees or modify the prejudgment interest rate was upheld. The appellant's remaining arguments were found to be without merit.

Arbitration AwardAffirmed JudgmentLabor LawIncentive CompensationPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesArbitrator PowersManifest Disregard of LawOral ModificationAppellate Review
References
7
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

In re the Arbitration between International Brotherhood of America & Castwell Foundry Corp.

Petitioner moved to confirm an arbitration award against a named respondent and Controlled Castings Corp., alleging agreement violations and that Controlled Castings Corp. was a 'runaway shop' of the respondent. Controlled Castings Corp. cross-moved to vacate the award, arguing lack of notice and that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by making an award against a non-party. The court found that the arbitrator could determine the identity of interest for the respondent's liability but lacked authority to impose liability on Controlled Castings Corp. as it was not a party to the arbitration. Consequently, the motion to confirm was granted only against the respondent, and the cross-motion to vacate the award against Controlled Castings Corp. was granted.

Arbitration AwardCorporate Alter EgoRunaway ShopArbitrator JurisdictionDue ProcessNon-Party LiabilityContractual ArbitrationMotion to ConfirmMotion to VacateLabor Disputes
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1999

Claim of Mace v. Owl Wire & Cable Co.

The claimant's husband suffered a heart attack in 1971 and died in 1991, with the death causally related to the 1971 injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that a 3% interest rate, applicable to 1971 accidents under Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (5), should be used to calculate the present value of the death benefits award to be paid into the Aggregate Trust Fund. The workers’ compensation carrier appealed, contending that the 6% rate, in effect at the time of the decedent's death in 1991, should apply. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statutory interest rate for calculating the present value of awards to the Aggregate Trust Fund is tied to the date of the original accident, not the subsequent causally-related death. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent and prior Board decisions.

Workers' CompensationAggregate Trust FundInterest Rate CalculationStatutory InterpretationDeath BenefitsDate of AccidentLegislative IntentPresent ValueInsurance Carrier LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1993

Lyons v. National Union Fire Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order and judgment by the Supreme Court, Kings County, regarding an arbitration award. The Supreme Court initially granted the petitioner's request to confirm the arbitration award and denied the appellant's cross-application to reduce it by workers' compensation benefits. On appeal, the order and judgment was modified, granting the appellant's cross-application and thereby reducing the award to the petitioner based on an insurance policy provision. The appellate court affirmed that the petitioner is entitled to prejudgment interest on the adjusted amount. This decision highlights the enforceability of insurance policy offsets for workers' compensation benefits against uninsured motorist endorsements.

Arbitration awardWorkers' Compensation benefitsUninsured motorist endorsementInsurance policy offsetPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewJudicial modificationKings CountyCPLRContractual reduction
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenberg v. New York City Transit Authority

The case addresses whether predecision interest can be included in damages awarded under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 for retaliatory discharge. The claimant was fired by the New York City Transit Authority shortly after filing a workers' compensation claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded back pay and interest, but the Workers’ Compensation Board and Appellate Division subsequently disallowed the interest. The court analyzed Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, comparing it to other antidiscrimination statutes that permit such interest, and distinguished it from statutes that do not. Ultimately, the court held that predecision interest awards are permissible under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, thereby modifying the Appellate Division’s order and reinstating the interest award.

Retaliatory DischargePredecision InterestBack PayDamagesWorkers' Compensation LawAntidiscrimination StatuteStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEmployer Retaliation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Soto (Goldman)

Seven employees faced discharge and contested an arbitration award, arguing a conflict of interest arose from their union's attorney also representing their employer. After Special Term and the Appellate Division initially vacated the award, finding a denial of fair representation, the higher court reversed this decision and remitted the case. This dissenting opinion argues against the reversal, asserting that denying employees independent counsel, especially with the union attorney's conflict, fundamentally compromised the arbitration's fairness and vitiated the award. The dissent emphasizes that fair and good faith representation is essential, particularly when specific individual rights are directly implicated in arbitration proceedings.

ArbitrationUnion RepresentationConflict of InterestDue ProcessFair RepresentationVacatur of AwardAppellate ReviewCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee RightsJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Church Mutual Insurance v. Kleingardner

The case concerns Charles Kleingardner's application to confirm an arbitration award against Church Mutual Insurance Company, seeking statutory interest on the award. An arbitrator awarded Kleingardner $725,000 for underinsurance after a motor vehicle accident, which Church Mutual paid. However, Kleingardner had endorsed the payment "under protest" to preserve his claim for interest. Church Mutual argued that accepting the check constituted an accord and satisfaction, barring the interest claim. The court, presided over by James W. McCarthy, J., determined that Uniform Commercial Code § 1-207 (reservation of rights) applied, negating the defense of accord and satisfaction, especially since an arbitration award created a definite obligation. Consequently, the court confirmed the arbitration award and granted Kleingardner statutory interest from the date of the award (March 3, 2003) to the date of payment (May 21, 2003).

Arbitration Award ConfirmationAccord and SatisfactionUCC 1-207Reservation of RightsInterest on AwardUnderinsured Motorist CoverageMotor Vehicle AccidentWorkers' Compensation OffsetSocial Security Disability Benefits
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 8,646 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