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
Apr 03, 2006

Lawrence Teachers Ass'n v. Lawrence Public Schools

This case concerns an appeal by the Lawrence Teachers Association (petitioner) challenging the denial of their petition to confirm an arbitration award. The arbitration award mandated Lawrence Public Schools (respondent) to designate members of the petitioner’s bargaining unit to provide special education services outside the school district's geographical boundaries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petition, concluding the award was unenforceable. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the arbitration award violated public policy as it contravened Education Law former § 3602-c (2). This statute required the school district to contract with the school district where the nonpublic school attended by the pupil was located for such services. The court emphasized that an arbitrator's award cannot stand if it is contrary to well-defined statutory law and public policy.

Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyEducation LawSpecial Education ServicesCollective BargainingStipulationStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewSchool District ObligationsLabor Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

Tr. Auth. v. Transp. Workers

This case consolidates two appeals concerning the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary MABSTOA's attempts to vacate arbitration awards that reduced employee disciplinary penalties from dismissal to lesser sanctions for safety violations. The employees, David Rodriguez and Leroy Bright, were disciplined for separate safety incidents but had their dismissals overturned by arbitrators. The Appellate Division vacated these awards, citing public policy related to public safety. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the arbitration awards, emphasizing the narrowness of the public policy exception to arbitration, especially in public employment collective bargaining agreements under the Taylor Law. The Court held that Public Authorities Law § 1204 (15), concerning public safety, does not 'absolutely prohibit' arbitrators from modifying penalties, nor does it mandate dismissal over other severe sanctions.

ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DisciplineSafety ViolationsJudicial ReviewTaylor LawPublic EmploymentTransit AuthorityMisconduct
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between New York State Office of Children & Family Services & Lanterman

This dissenting opinion argues that respondent Lauren Lanterman is entitled to arbitrate her termination for failing to maintain teaching certification under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The dissent emphasizes the narrow public policy exception to arbitration and the inappropriateness of preemptive judicial intervention, contending that an arbitrator could fashion a remedy other than termination that would not violate public policy or state regulations. It disagrees with the majority's implicit conclusion that allowing an arbitrator to determine the remedy would improperly delegate authority from the State Education Department or OCFS. The dissenting judge asserts that the dispute, concerning the interpretation and application of the CBA's disciplinary articles, unequivocally falls within the agreement's broad arbitration provisions. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the Supreme Court's determination to allow arbitration should be affirmed, as no constitutional, statutory, or public policy prohibition prevents it.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementTeacher CertificationPublic Policy ExceptionTermination of EmploymentDissenting OpinionArbitrabilityPublic Sector EmploymentState Education DepartmentOffice of Children and Family Services
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between State of New York & Civil Service Employees Ass'n

Petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed an arbitration award, denying petitioner's application to vacate it. The arbitration involved David H. Jackson, a Youth Division Aide, who was disciplined for punching a juvenile and pushing a coworker, with a proposed penalty of termination. The arbitrator found Jackson guilty but imposed an eight-month suspension, anger management therapy, and a three-month probationary period instead of termination. Petitioner argued the reinstatement violated public policy concerning child protection, citing Executive Law § 501 (12) and Social Services Law § 412-a. The court affirmed, ruling that the public policy exception to arbitration awards is narrow and the cited laws did not absolutely prohibit the arbitrator's devised remedy or mandate termination, nor did the award explicitly violate public policy.

Arbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionMisconductEmployee DisciplineYouth Division AideChild ProtectionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewVacatur of AwardAffirmation of Judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ngan Gung Restaurant, Inc. v. New York (In Re Ngan Gung Restaurant, Inc.)

Ngan Gung Restaurant, Inc., a debtor in chapter 11, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment that a state action by the New York Attorney General for labor law violations was subject to the automatic stay and sought a preliminary injunction. The Attorney General argued the action fell under the police or regulatory power exception of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). The court applied the pecuniary purpose and public policy tests, concluding that governmental actions to enforce labor laws and seek restitution for unpaid wages serve public policy by preventing unfair competition and protecting employees. Therefore, the court found that the Attorney General's action to recover unpaid tips and overtime wages was excepted from the automatic stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic StayPolice Power ExceptionRegulatory Power ExceptionLabor Law ViolationsWage ClaimsUnpaid TipsOvertime WagesDeclaratory JudgmentPreliminary Injunction
References
39
Case No. 32 NY3d 991
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2018

Matter of Spence v. New York State Dept. of Agric. & Mkts.

Petitioners, including Wayne Spence (President of the New York State Public Employees Federation) and two state dairy product specialists, challenged a policy by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. The policy prohibited employees responsible for inspecting regulated entities from campaigning for or holding elected office, citing conflict of interest. Petitioner Gregory Kulzer's request to serve as a county legislator was denied after he had previously been approved and elected, leading to a formal policy revision. Petitioners initiated a hybrid declaratory judgment action/CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing the policy violated First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division rejected their claims, applying the Pickering standard. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, finding the policy not unconstitutional. However, dissenting Judges Rivera and Wilson argued that the lower courts erred by not applying the heightened 'exacting scrutiny' standard established in United States v Treasury Employees and reaffirmed in Janus v State, County, and Municipal Employees, which applies to widespread limitations on public employee speech. They would have reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration under this stricter standard.

First AmendmentPublic Employee SpeechConflict of InterestHatch ActExacting ScrutinyPickering StandardJudiciary LawFreedom of SpeechGovernment PolicyElected Office
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2005

Mineola Union Free School District v. Mineola Teachers' Ass'n.

The petitioner, Mineóla Union Free School District, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which had denied its motion to stay arbitration and granted the Mineóla Teachers’ Association's cross-motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the dispute, related to article 24 of the collective bargaining agreement, was indeed subject to arbitration. The court rejected the District's argument that an arbitration award favoring the Association would violate public policy, emphasizing the narrow scope of the public policy exception in public employment cases. It concluded that no law prohibited such an award and that upholding article 24 would not force the District to hire unqualified candidates, thus not violating Education Law §§ 3012 (1) (a) and 1709 (16).

ArbitrationCollective BargainingPublic EmploymentTaylor LawPublic Policy ExceptionEducation LawAppealNassau CountySchool DistrictTeachers Union
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jardim v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

Petitioner Leroy Jardim initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to overturn a January 30, 1998 decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The ALJ had previously dismissed Jardim's improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), finding no violation. Both PERB and NYCTA moved to dismiss the current petition, arguing that Jardim failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not filing exceptions to the ALJ's decision. The court concurred with the respondents, emphasizing that Jardim's choice to bypass the available administrative appeals process constituted a waiver of his right to challenge the decision. Consequently, the court granted the respondents' motions and dismissed Jardim's petition.

Administrative LawExhaustion of Administrative RemediesCPLR Article 78Public Employment Relations BoardNew York City Transit AuthorityImproper Practice ChargeUnion StewardAdministrative Law JudgeWaiver of RightsJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chenango Forks Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The dissent challenges the court's confirmation of a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination, which compelled a school district (petitioner) to reinstate Medicare Part B reimbursements. This PERB ruling overturned an arbitrator's decision that found no violation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding these reimbursements, citing a lack of binding past practice. The dissenting judge argues that PERB improperly disregarded its own post-arbitral deference policies, thereby allowing the Association to relitigate an issue already addressed in a fair arbitration. The dissent emphasizes the importance of arbitration finality and raises concerns about the protracted process and potential unconstitutionality of payments not explicitly authorized.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPublic Employment Relations BoardPast PracticeMedicare Part B ReimbursementsGrievanceImproper Practice ChargePost-Arbitral DeferenceAbuse of DiscretionLabor Law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,083 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