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
Jun 30, 1989

Lange v. Sartorius, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which affirmed an arbitrators’ award in favor of the petitioner and denied the respondents’ cross-motion to vacate it. The dispute arose from the petitioner's termination of employment, which was submitted to arbitration as per their employment agreements. The arbitrators found that the respondents had not complied with the agreements and rendered a monetary award to the petitioner, considering his sudden departure. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards are given deference and are not subject to judicial review for merely erroneous factual findings unless completely irrational. Since the arbitrators' award was not irrational, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardVacatur of AwardEmployment DisputeJudicial Review of ArbitrationDeference to ArbitratorsIrrational FindingsNew York LawFederal LawAppellate Affirmation
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

McKenna v. County of Nassau Office of County Attorney

In a case involving an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, a police officer sought to modify an arbitrator's award related to no-fault benefits. The officer, injured in a job-related accident, received full salary under General Municipal Law § 207-c and also applied for no-fault benefits. The arbitrator's award did not deduct the wage continuation payments, leading Special Term to vacate the award to prevent double recovery. The appellate court reversed Special Term's decision, finding the arbitrator's award was not irrational enough to warrant vacatur. However, the court did modify the award due to a miscalculation, acknowledging a statutory loophole in the original no-fault law that permitted such double recovery, which has since been legislatively closed.

Arbitration AwardNo-Fault Insurance BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law 207-cDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReversalCPLR 7511Police Officer InjuryInsurance Law § 671Miscalculation of Award
References
5
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
Nov 18, 1987

M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. v. Cirillo

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. (petitioner) under CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petitioner's request and granted the respondent, George Medina's, cross-petition to confirm the award. M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. had discharged employee George Medina, alleging he "goofed off" and took excessive time during deliveries. The arbitrator concluded that M. Slavin & Sons, Ltd. failed to prove just cause for the discharge, noting discrepancies in delivery records and deeming Medina's brief stop at Pitkin Avenue a de minimis breach. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards can only be vacated if the arbitrator acts irrationally, not merely due to mistakes of fact or law, which was not found in this instance. The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that Slavin lacked just cause for Medina's termination.

ArbitrationVacaturArbitration AwardJust CauseDischargeEmployment LawCPLR Article 75Judicial ReviewFactual ErrorLegal Error
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Placona v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. employee (petitioner) was discharged after his home's electric meter was found tampered with. The Utility Workers Union of America, Local 1-2 AFL/CIO filed a grievance on his behalf, which proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator upheld the discharge, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The petitioner sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court, Queens County, vacated the award and remitted for a new hearing. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, denying the application to vacate the arbitrator's award. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing proof that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct or exceeded his power, and the award was not completely irrational, as the arbitrator was within his power to use the presumption of tampering.

Arbitration AwardVacate JudgmentEmployee DischargeMeter TamperingJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtCollective BargainingUnion GrievancePresumption of GuiltRational Basis
References
8
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
Apr 20, 2006

In re the Arbitration between Mays-Carr & State Farm Insurance

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied her petition seeking to set aside an arbitration award and to obtain a new hearing before a different arbitrator. The petitioner contended that the arbitrator either exceeded his power or imperfectly executed it, and also alleged partiality, referencing CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (ii), (iii). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, asserting that an arbitrator's power is exceeded only when the award violates strong public policy, is irrational, or explicitly surpasses enumerated limitations. It found the arbitrator's determination, which denied the petitioner an award for economic loss beyond basic economic loss, to be rational and supported by the record, especially given the absence of a serious injury finding. Furthermore, the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's claims of arbitrator bias as speculative, stating that past adverse rulings against her counsel do not inherently establish a lack of impartiality.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardArbitrator ImpartialityExceeded PowerImperfect ExecutionSerious InjuryEconomic LossAppellate ReviewNew York State
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Amato v. Leffler

This case involves an appeal by plaintiffs in Action No. 1, arising from two related actions concerning the dissolution of a partnership. The plaintiffs challenged a Supreme Court order from Suffolk County which denied their motion to vacate an arbitration award and appoint a receiver, along with their cross-motion to impose sanctions on the law firm Lazer, Aptheker, Feldman, Rosella & Yedid, LLP. The appellate court dismissed the appeal pertaining to the cross-motion, noting the earlier dismissal of the complaint in Action No. 2. Ultimately, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the arbitration award, concluding that the award was not violative of strong public policy, irrational, or exceeding the arbitrators' power. The court also found no misconduct in the arbitrators' refusal to hear evidence on issues previously decided by the court.

Partnership DissolutionArbitration Award VacaturCPLR 7511Appointment of ReceiverSanctionsAppellate ReviewArbitrator PowersPublic Policy ViolationIrrational AwardEvidentiary Ruling
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1993

Landmark Construction Corp. v. Iron Workers Local 580

The petitioner appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied their application to vacate an arbitration award and granted the respondent's cross-application to confirm it. The appeal also reviewed a subsequent order from the same court that adhered to the original determination upon reargument. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the initial judgment as it was superseded and affirmed the order from February 9, 1993. The court found that the petitioner's failure to seek a stay of arbitration precluded challenges to the agreement's validity or arbitrability. Additionally, the arbitrator's award was properly confirmed as it was neither irrational nor beyond their authority.

ArbitrationVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardAppealCPLR Article 75ArbitrabilityStay of ArbitrationAppellate CourtNassau CountyJudicial Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,829 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