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. 08094
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2020

Revis v. Schwartz

Darrelle Revis and his corporate entity Shavae, LLC, sued Neil Schwartz, Schwartz & Feinsod, LLC, and Jonathan Feinsod, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and fraud. The claims arose from a standard representation agreement (SRA) and a separate oral marketing and endorsement agreement. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the SRA, by incorporating NFLPA regulations and AAA rules, delegated arbitrability questions to an arbitrator. The Supreme Court granted the motion, compelling arbitration for all parties and staying the action. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the contractual documents, including incorporated AAA rules, clearly and unmistakably evidenced an intent to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator, extending even to nonsignatory defendants and Shavae, LLC, under the direct benefits theory of estoppel. A dissenting opinion argued that the SRA's arbitration clause was limited to disputes 'of this Agreement' (the SRA) and did not extend to the separate oral agreement, raising a factual question about Schwartz's role as an attorney for the marketing and endorsement deal.

arbitration agreementarbitrabilityNFLPA regulationsAAA rulescontract interpretationfiduciary dutybreach of contractfraudnonsignatoriesdirect benefits estoppel
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. ITT STANDARD

Paul Smith, Jr., a former employee of ITT Standard, filed a complaint alleging wrongful discharge against ITT and a violation of the duty of fair representation against his union, United Steel Workers of America Local No. 897, AFL-CIO. Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted the Union's motion regarding the bad faith claim but denied it concerning the arbitrary conduct claim. ITT's motion for summary judgment regarding the wrongful discharge claim was also denied, meaning that triable issues of fact remain for trial concerning the arbitrary nature of the union's representation and ITT's alleged improper discharge. The case hinges on whether Smith's conduct constituted insubordination under shop rules and if the 'last chance agreement' precluded arbitration.

Workers' RightsWrongful DischargeDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementInsubordinationLast Chance AgreementShop RulesLabor LawFederal Court
References
20
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

Civil Service Forum v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal concerning the legality of an agreement made by the New York City Transit Authority (Authority) with the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and Amalgamated Association (Amalgamated), granting them exclusive collective bargaining rights for hourly paid employees. The Civil Service Forum, a labor union, and its members, employees of the Authority, initiated a declaratory judgment action, arguing that these exclusive rights were unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Special Term initially granted the Authority and TWU's motions to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the Authority had the power under the Public Authorities Law to enter into such agreements. The court clarified that the agreement, while granting exclusive representation in grievance processing, still preserved individual employees' rights to present grievances and did not compel union membership. Ultimately, the court directed a declaratory judgment affirming the validity of the Authority's resolutions, election, agreements, and policy statements.

Labor LawCollective BargainingPublic AuthoritiesDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionGrievance ProceduresExclusive RepresentationTransit Authority
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2006

McNamara v. Tourneau, Inc.

In this employment discrimination case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pro se plaintiff Charles McNamara and defendant Tourneau, Inc. reached a settlement during court-ordered mediation, signing a stipulation that included "Standard 21 day language." McNamara later refused to sign a formal agreement, alleging misrepresentation during mediation and asserting his right to revoke. Tourneau moved to enforce the settlement, arguing it was a binding contract. The Court found the stipulation to be a fully binding preliminary agreement. However, due to ambiguity in the "Standard 21 day language"—which pertained to the ADEA's 21-day consideration and 7-day revocation periods—and considering extrinsic evidence, including Tourneau's own proposed formal agreement, the Court concluded that McNamara retained the right to revoke prior to signing the formal contract. Consequently, Tourneau's motion to enforce the settlement was denied, and the case was reinstated, as McNamara's revocation was deemed timely.

Employment DiscriminationADA ClaimADEA WaiverSettlement EnforcementContract AmbiguityMediation ProgramPro Se PlaintiffRevocation RightsOWBPA ComplianceNew York Contract Law
References
21
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
Jul 22, 1974

Kaminsky v. Connolly

This appellate decision addresses an action by a plaintiff seeking pension benefits from the Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund. The initial trial court granted the plaintiff a pension against the union despite finding him a stranger to the fund and no specific relief sought. However, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff, an owner-driver, was never covered by the collective bargaining agreement and made no contributions to the pension fund. Furthermore, even if considered an employee, he lacked the requisite 15 years of service for eligibility. The court also clarified that federal law governs the union's duty of fair representation, requiring proof of bad faith, which the plaintiff failed to provide. Consequently, the judgment awarding damages was modified, and the complaint against the appellant union was dismissed.

Pension FundLabor UnionTaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementOwner-DriverEmployee EligibilityFair Representation DutyFederal LawAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Buffalo v. A.F.S.C.M.E. Council 35, Local 264

Collective bargaining agreements between the City of Buffalo and labor organizations for city employees provided a prescription drug plan. An agreement effective 1982-1984 raised the copayment amount from $0-$1 to $3. The controversy arose when the city attempted to apply the increased copayment to individuals who had retired when lower copayments were in effect. The unions filed grievances and demanded arbitration, while the city sought a stay, arguing that retirees were not "employees" under the agreements and thus not representable by the unions. The court found the broad arbitration clause in the agreements made the issue of the union's relationship to retired employees a question for arbitration, even though the agreements had lapsed, because the dispute related to an obligation arguably created by the expired agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseGrievance ProcedureRetired EmployeesCopayment IncreaseExpired AgreementStay of ArbitrationUnion RepresentationContract InterpretationErie County Supreme Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1993

Pennisi v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co.

A longshoreman, having received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, International Terminal Operating Company (ITO), initiated a personal injury action against Standard Fruit & Steamship Company and Netumar Lines. Standard Fruit and Netumar subsequently filed a third-party complaint against ITO for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted ITO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating Standard Fruit's indemnification claim against ITO due to unresolved factual questions regarding Standard Fruit's status as a 'vessel' and the existence of an indemnification contract. The court affirmed the dismissal of contribution claims, citing the LHWCA's exclusivity provision, and remitted the matter for a determination on sanctions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLongshoreman InjurySummary JudgmentContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party ComplaintLHWCAVessel StatusContractual IndemnityImplied Indemnity
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,679 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