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

Laborers International Union of North America v. Clark Material Handling, Inc.

Special Term erred in concluding an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement was invalid because it gave the union the unilateral right to arbitrate at its option. This decision contrasts with Federal labor law principles where a union's exclusive right to invoke arbitration does not invalidate the agreement. The court also clarified that the union reserving the right to strike alongside arbitration does not render the agreement invalid. However, a factual question arose concerning the validity of the collective bargaining agreement itself, specifically whether the employees who signed it on the employer's behalf had the authority to bind the company. Therefore, the matter was remitted for a hearing to determine the agreement's validity.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ProvisionMutuality of ObligationFederal Labor LawUnion RightsEmployer AuthorityContract ValidityRemittiturAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 1997

Guri v. Atlanta International Insurance

This motion addresses the enforceability of a post-judgment agreement assigning a defendant’s right to reimbursement from a third-party defendant, particularly when the original plaintiff and third-party defendant are employee and employer. Plaintiff Zorina Guri sought to enforce this assignment agreement against the State Insurance Fund (SIF) and Atlanta International Insurance Company (AIIC), who were the insurers of B.C. Enterprises, Inc., the third-party defendant in an earlier action. The assignment arose from a 1992 judgment where employee Theodore Crawford secured a verdict against Jimmie L. Williams and Geneval K. Williams, who subsequently obtained a contribution judgment against B.C. Enterprises. Guri loaned the Williamses funds to partially satisfy Crawford's judgment, receiving an assignment of their rights, including the contribution judgment against B.C. Enterprises. The court denied SIF's summary judgment motion, ruling the assignment did not violate Workers' Compensation Law public policy, distinguishing it from invalid pretrial agreements, and granted Guri's cross-motion for summary judgment against both defendants, also deeming AIIC's late notice disclaimer ineffective.

Assignment AgreementPost-Judgment EnforcementThird-Party ActionsContributionDole v. Dow exceptionInsurance Coverage DisclaimerLate Notice DefensePublic PolicySummary JudgmentLoan Arrangement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dalcro Corp. & International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

Three applications were submitted to the court regarding an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement. Employer Dalcro Corp. moved to stay arbitration and to vacate an arbitrator's award, while the Union moved to confirm the award. The dispute arose from an alleged oral modification of wage rates. Dalcro claimed the arbitration agreement was invalid, there was no arbitrable issue, and the National Labor Relations Board had pre-empted jurisdiction. The court denied Dalcro's application for a stay, finding that Dalcro had participated in the arbitration proceedings. However, the court granted Dalcro's application to vacate the arbitrator's award because the arbitrator failed to adjourn the hearing as mandated by Civil Practice Act § 1458 after being served with a motion for a stay. Consequently, the Union's application to confirm the award was denied, and a rehearing before the arbitrator was directed.

Arbitration AgreementCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardArbitration StayVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardDue ProcessJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
17
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2002

Claim of Estate of Lutz v. Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a waiver agreement. The decedent, Beverly Lutz, her employer, and carrier had a proposed settlement agreement that was filed but not yet approved when she died. The Board, through Commissioner Tremiti, refused to honor the agreement after the carrier and Special Funds withdrew their consent. Although an approval notice was mistakenly issued, the Board later corrected it, ruling the agreement was never approved. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to correct its error and that the withdrawal of consent by the carrier and Special Funds justified the disapproval of the agreement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementDeath BenefitsBoard ReviewJurisdictionConsent WithdrawalStatutory InterpretationRegulation ValidityAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Avon Associates, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by defendants mortgagors to vacate an ex parte order appointing a receiver during a mortgage foreclosure action. Defendants asserted that the lack of notice for the receiver's appointment violated CPLR 6401 and their Federal constitutional due process rights, citing Fuentes v Shevin. The court found that New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1325 (subd 1) permits ex parte receiver appointments when the mortgage contract explicitly waives notice. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from Fuentes, concluding that the sophisticated business operators involved had knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to notice, akin to the circumstances in Overmyer Co. v Frick Co. Based on these findings, the court affirmed the validity of the ex parte order and denied the defendants' motion to vacate the appointment of the receiver.

Mortgage ForeclosureReceiver AppointmentEx Parte OrderDue ProcessWaiver of NoticeContractual WaiverCPLRReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawConstitutional LawBusiness Disputes
References
9
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
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,759 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