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

Hayes v. County Bank

Patricia Hayes initiated a class action challenging the arbitration clause in loan documents provided by a federally-insured bank, seeking to declare it void. The Supreme Court, Queens County, compelled arbitration and stayed the action, a decision Hayes appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not bar the appeal and that the arbitration agreements were valid and enforceable. The court found no procedural unconscionability by Hayes and reiterated that precluding class actions does not inherently make agreements unconscionable. It also determined that the legality of the underlying loan agreements falls within the arbitrator's purview.

Arbitration AgreementClass Action WaiverLoan DocumentsUnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration Act PreemptionAppellate ReviewContract ValidityState Procedural RulesArbitrator's JurisdictionConsumer Loans
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hojnowski v. Buffalo Bills, Inc.

David Hojnowski, a former equipment manager for the Buffalo Bills, sued his former employer alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Buffalo Bills moved to dismiss the claims and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in Hojnowski's employment contract. Hojnowski contended that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to the absence of arbitration rules and unconscionability. The court determined that the arbitration rules were sufficiently incorporated into the agreement and that the contract was not unconscionable. Consequently, the court granted the Bills' motion, compelling Hojnowski to arbitration and dismissing his complaint.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment LawAge DiscriminationERISANew York State Human Rights LawMotion to DismissContract EnforceabilityUnconscionability DefenseFederal Arbitration ActNFL Commissioner
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2014

Whitehaven S.F., LLC v. Spangler

This case involves a dispute over the validity and enforceability of an arbitration clause within a litigation financing agreement. Petitioner Whitehaven S.F., LLC sought to compel Respondent Steven Spangler to arbitrate after Spangler initiated an Indiana state court action to void their financing agreement, citing unconscionability. The District Court granted Whitehaven's motion, finding the arbitration clause valid under New York law and rejecting Spangler's arguments that it was unconscionable or violated a prior Assurance of Discontinuance with the New York Attorney General. The court also ordered a stay of the Indiana Proceeding concerning claims between Whitehaven and Spangler, but excluded third-party Harvey Thatcher from arbitration as he was not a signatory to the agreement. The decision underscores the strong federal policy favoring arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementLitigation FinancingContract EnforceabilityUnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration ActAssurance of DiscontinuanceNew York LawChoice of LawDeclaratory JudgmentStay of Proceedings
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Malone v. Paving

This case involves a workers' compensation dispute where the carrier mistakenly mailed a check to the claimant's former address. The dissenting judge, Carpinello, J., argued that the penalty imposed on the carrier was unconscionable and a windfall for the claimant, citing *Matter of Krug’s Glazing Servs.* as a precedent for reversal. However, Crew III, J.P., concurred, leading to the affirmation of the original decision.

Workers' Compensation DisputeMailing ErrorUnconscionable PenaltyClaimant BenefitCarrier LiabilityPrecedent AnalysisDissenting OpinionAffirmed Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 453, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. Otis Elevator Co.

A union moved for a preliminary injunction to compel an employer to reinstate an employee discharged for violating a company rule prohibiting gambling. The employee was convicted for possessing policy slips on premises during working hours. An arbitrator had previously reinstated the employee without back pay, finding discharge too harsh. The employer argued the arbitrator exceeded his power. The court denied the union's motion, ruling that the arbitration award clashed with public policy against organized gambling and that granting the injunction would be unconscionable and aid law-breaking.

Preliminary InjunctionArbitration Award EnforcementLabor-Management RelationsEmployee DischargeGamblingPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewCollective BargainingJust CauseIrreparable Harm
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrocchi v. Ronan

Plaintiff Anthony J. Petrocchi sought $847.26 in retroactive pay from the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. The claim arose from a labor complaint regarding prevailing wage rates between July 1, 1966, and January 16, 1968. The defendant argued that Petrocchi should have filed his complaint with the Industrial Commissioner, not the City Comptroller, and that payment was only for 'presently' employed individuals. The court found that the defendant was estopped from denying payment, citing Petrocchi's consistent past practice of filing with the Comptroller, which had been honored. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, asserting that denying him equal pay after his approved transfer would be unconscionable and discriminatory.

Prevailing wage disputeRetroactive pay claimLabor Law Section 220Estoppel doctrinePublic Authorities LawInter-agency employment transferEmployment discriminationCustom and practiceFiscal officer jurisdictionEmployee rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bynum v. Maplebear Inc.

Plaintiff Melody Bynum initiated an action against Instacart, alleging misclassification as an independent contractor and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Instacart moved to compel arbitration based on an independent contractor agreement. The court found the arbitration agreement valid, despite being a contract of adhesion, as Bynum had a reasonable opportunity to review and sign it. The court, however, severed the unconscionable venue, fee-splitting, and fee-shifting clauses of the agreement based on the parties' stipulation. It affirmed that FLSA claims are arbitrable and that the dispute falls within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement, ultimately granting Instacart's motion to compel arbitration and staying the case.

ArbitrationEmployment ContractIndependent ContractorFLSANYLLWage ClaimsOvertime WagesUnconscionabilitySeverability ClauseFederal Arbitration Act
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2016

Bristol Village, Inc. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Plaintiff Bristol Village, Inc. sued defendant Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (LPC) over defective "TrimBoard" used in an assisted living facility. Plaintiff alleged breach of express warranty and violation of New York’s General Business Law § 349. LPC moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for LPC on the GBL § 349 claim, finding it time-barred and that plaintiff's equitable estoppel argument failed. The court denied summary judgment on the breach of express warranty claim, citing disputed facts regarding LPC's compliance with warranty obligations and whether the limited remedy failed its essential purpose, although it upheld the enforceability of the damages limitations, finding them not unconscionable.

Product defectExpress warrantySummary judgmentStatute of limitationsEquitable estoppelUnconscionabilityDamages limitationUniform Commercial CodeClass action (putative)Construction dispute
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deneen v. City of New York

The plaintiff, an individual whose union entered into a wage deferral agreement with the City of New York in 1975, sued the city for unpaid wages in Small Claims Court after five years of non-payment. The city sought dismissal, citing the plaintiff's failure to exhaust arbitration remedies and the indefinite suspension of payment due to ambiguities in the agreement. The court distinguished a prior Appellate Term reversal in Albert v City of New York by highlighting the union's bad faith in creating the ambiguous contract and its refusal to represent the plaintiff. The opinion emphasized that the city's delay was unconscionable and that its reliance on arbitration as a defense was procedurally improper. Ultimately, the court denied the city's motion and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Wage DeferralUnion Breach of Fiduciary DutyArbitration ExhaustionSummary JudgmentSmall Claims CourtContract AmbiguityUnpaid WagesDue ProcessCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee Rights
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03582 [172 AD3d 843]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2019

Lenge v. Eklecco Newco, LLC

John Lenge and his wife sued multiple entities, including Eklecco Newco, LLC, for personal injuries sustained in a construction accident. The plaintiff was employed by Anzek Construction Corp. and tripped over a pallet. A settlement was reached in open court for $325,000, but plaintiffs later tried to void it, citing issues with workers' compensation consent and Medicare set-aside. Anzek Construction Corp. moved to enforce the stipulation of settlement, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding the open-court stipulation to be a binding contract. The court held that dissatisfaction with the settlement amount after liens was not grounds for invalidating it without proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryStipulation of SettlementContract EnforcementWorkers' Compensation LienMedicare Set-AsideAppellate ReviewOral AgreementJudicial PrecedentCivil Procedure
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 23 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