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. 2017 NY Slip Op 03642 [150 AD3d 1641]
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2017

In Re the Arbitration Between City of Buffalo & Buffalo Police Benevolent Ass'n

The City of Buffalo appealed an order denying its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitrator found that the City violated a collective bargaining agreement by terminating a police officer without due process, awarding him back pay. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the City failed to demonstrate the award was against public policy or irrational. The court emphasized judicial deference to arbitration awards, especially in public employment disputes, and found the City's arguments insufficient for vacatur.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration Award VacaturPolice Officer TerminationDue Process ViolationBack Pay AwardPublic Policy ExceptionJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeErie CountyAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Campbell & State of New York

Monica A. Campbell, a state employee, and her union, New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association (COPBA), entered into a disciplinary settlement agreement with her employer, the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH). This agreement established a one-year disciplinary evaluation period (DEP) during which Campbell could be terminated without recourse to arbitration if she committed misconduct. Following two incidents, OMH terminated Campbell's employment. Petitioners (Campbell and COPBA) sought to compel arbitration of the termination, arguing that the agreement did not explicitly exclude arbitration on the question of misconduct. Supreme Court ordered arbitration. Respondents (OMH) appealed, arguing the DEP constituted a probationary period where OMH had the right to make a threshold determination of misconduct without arbitration. The appellate court agreed with OMH, finding that the parties intended to exclude arbitration for the threshold determination of misconduct during the DEP, and that petitioners' sole remedy was judicial review under CPLR article 78. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order compelling arbitration was reversed, the petitioners' application denied, and the respondents' cross-application to stay arbitration was granted. The matter was remitted for consideration of petitioners' alternative CPLR article 78 request.

ArbitrationDisciplinary ActionEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic EmployeesProbationary PeriodMisconductJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Hicks & Royal Globe Insurance

This case concerns claimants injured in a 1974 automobile accident during employment, seeking no-fault medical benefits. An arbitrator initially denied these benefits, citing the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. However, the Court of Appeals' decision in Ryder Truck Lines v Maiorano (1978) established that employees are entitled to no-fault benefits determinable by arbitration. Reviewing the arbitrator's decision, the court found it was based on a mistake of law. Applying a broader standard for judicial review in compulsory arbitration, the court vacated the part of the arbitrator's award denying medical benefits and remanded the issue for a rehearing to determine the benefits under the no-fault law. The respondent's cross-motion to confirm the arbitrator's decision was consequently denied.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault InsuranceArbitrationJudicial ReviewMistake of LawAutomobile AccidentMedical BenefitsCompulsory ArbitrationCourt of Appeals PrecedentStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between State Laundry Corp. & Laundry Workers Joint Board

The respondent sought to open a default on a motion to confirm an arbitration award, which was granted on November 29, 1960. The respondent's attorney was informed of the default on November 28, 1960, and was served with the order on December 13, 1960. Despite this, the motion to open the default was not filed until February 21, 1960, nearly three months later, with the only explanation being an unspecified family death. The court denied the motion, finding the excuse for the significant delay insufficient and the respondent's affidavit of merits lacking in facts necessary to vacate or modify the award. The court also affirmed that a party who participated in arbitration cannot claim the arbitrator exceeded authority, and judicial intervention is unwarranted for factual or legal errors if the arbitrator had jurisdiction.

ArbitrationDefault JudgmentMotion PracticeExcuse for DelayAffidavit of MeritsJurisdictionJudicial Review of Arbitration AwardsCivil Practice ActArbitrator AuthorityDenial of Motion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Candor Central School District v. American Arbitration Ass'n

The Candor Central School District (the district) applied to the court for an order restraining the American Arbitration Association (AAA) from proceeding with arbitration. This application was made while a CPLR 7503 proceeding to stay arbitration, involving the district and the Candor Faculty Association, was pending in another court. The district argued against the need for a temporary restraining order in the CPLR 7503 proceeding, citing judicial time and client costs. The AAA countered that its impartiality would be compromised if it were named an adverse party and stressed the importance of proceeding with arbitration unless explicitly stayed by stipulation or court order. The court ultimately denied the district's application, concluding that restraining the AAA was inappropriate and advising the district to seek relief within the pending CPLR 7503 proceeding.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCPLR 7503American Arbitration Association (AAA)Injunctive ReliefJudicial InterventionArbitration RulesCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial RestraintProcedural Law
References
5
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

In re the Arbitration between County of Broome & New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, District Council 82

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted petitioners' application to stay arbitration. The dispute originated when correction officer Tim Mooney was reassigned from courthouse duties by an Administrative Judge. The respondent union filed a grievance on Mooney's behalf, arguing that the reassignment violated a collective bargaining agreement and sought arbitration for his reinstatement. Petitioners, the County of Broome and Sheriff Harder, commenced a proceeding to stay arbitration, contending that public policy prohibits arbitration in this matter. The Supreme Court agreed and granted the application. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that Mooney's reinstatement would infringe upon the courts' inherent authority to manage judicial functions and would be contrary to strong public policy.

Arbitration StayPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial AuthorityCourt ManagementGrievanceEmployee ReassignmentCorrection OfficerBroome CountyAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. 06-05-00087-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Michael Pullara v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., Paxson & Associates, P.C. and Stephen B. Paxson

Michael Pullara appealed a summary judgment granted against him in favor of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), Paxson & Associates, P.C., and Stephen B. Paxson. Pullara sued Paxson and the AAA for damages, alleging Paxson failed to disclose his long-standing role as general counsel for the Greater Houston Builders Association (GHBA) before being selected as an arbitrator in a dispute between Pullara and Becker Fine Builders, Inc. Pullara contended this nondisclosure revealed a bias. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Pullara's claims are barred by the doctrine of arbitral immunity, which extends to arbitrators and their sponsoring organizations for acts performed in their quasi-judicial capacity, including failure to disclose potential biases. The court rejected Pullara's arguments that arbitral immunity conflicts with Texas statutory law or prior Texas Supreme Court holdings on evident partiality, emphasizing that the remedy for non-disclosure is vacating the award, not a cause of action for damages.

ArbitrationArbitral ImmunityDisclosureBiasSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Practice and Remedies CodeJudicial ImmunityLegal Malpractice
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re of the Arbitration between Town of Evans & International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition to stay arbitration, granted respondent's counterclaim to compel arbitration, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees and sanctions. The petitioner had terminated an accountant, Elmar Kiefer, for alleged sexual abuse and misuse of resources. Respondent filed a grievance on Kiefer's behalf, leading to a demand for arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was against public policy as an arbitrator might reinstate Kiefer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the public policy argument was premature and that courts should not pre-emptively assume an arbitrator will exceed their powers or violate public policy. The court also denied attorney's fees and sanctions for both parties.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementSexual HarassmentMisconductAttorney's FeesSanctionsAppellate ReviewGrievanceEmployment Termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between I. S. Joseph Co. & Toufic Aris & Fils

The Supreme Court affirmed a judgment dismissing Joseph's petition to stay arbitration and granting Toufic's cross-petition to compel arbitration, concurrently vacating an earlier stay pending appeal. The dispute arose from an oral grain sale agreement between Joseph, a Minnesota seller, and Toufic, a buyer from France and Lebanon, where both parties exchanged telex confirmations that largely agreed but had minor differences, and crucially incorporated a North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) contract containing a broad arbitration clause enforceable in New York. The court determined that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, asserting that New York law governed the arbitration provision due to its significant contacts, irrespective of the performance location. The majority opinion found the arbitration agreement valid, with some justices viewing it as part of a valid sales contract under UCC 2-207(2)(b), while others deemed the arbitration clause separable. Justice Nunez dissented, arguing for a remand to ascertain the validity of the underlying sales agreement, highlighting telex discrepancies and the non-execution of a formal contract as crucial factors impacting the arbitration agreement's existence.

Arbitration AgreementContract FormationChoice of LawUniform Commercial CodeInternational TradeGrain SaleTelex ConfirmationNAEGA ContractMaterial AlterationSeparability Doctrine
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,844 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