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

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. ADJ4335469
Regular
Jul 28, 2014

GABRIEL CASTRO vs. CARSON TRAILERS, INC., UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an industrial injury to the applicant's back and other body parts. The defendant, Carson Trailers, Inc., sought reconsideration of an award for transportation and four hours of daily home care. The Appeals Board affirmed the award, finding the defendant had previously stipulated to these services and failed to provide contrary medical evidence showing they were no longer necessary. The Board emphasized that the defendant could not unilaterally disregard prior stipulations and orders without seeking relief.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings And AwardAgreed Medical EvaluatorStale ReportingDevelopment of Medical RecordTransportation to Medical VisitsHome CareStipulationMinute Order
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01193 [214 AD3d 735]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2023

Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Long Beach

This case concerns a dispute between the Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association (union) and the City of Long Beach regarding the terms of employment for paramedics. The City had unilaterally set these terms, leading the union to file a grievance and subsequently seek arbitration. The arbitrator found that the City violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award, which the City appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the City failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to vacate the arbitration award on grounds of irrationality, manifest disregard of law, arbitrator misconduct, or violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardCPLR Article 75 ProceedingJudicial Review of ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawAppellate ReviewMunicipal EmploymentParamedicsGrievance
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses' Ass'n

Huntington Hospital initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to partially vacate an arbitration award, while the Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association cross-petitioned to confirm it. The dispute originated from the Hospital unilaterally granting two nurses, Betty Evans and Lynn Meyer, longevity pay credits exceeding the ten-year cap stipulated in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The arbitrator found the Hospital violated the CBA's sections on pay and exclusive bargaining rights. The arbitrator mandated the Hospital roll back excess credits and recover overpayments. The District Court denied the Hospital's petition, dismissing arguments regarding public policy, manifest disregard for law, and lack of award finality, ultimately confirming the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal Arbitration ActWage DisputesLongevity PayUnion RightsPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawContract Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pennick v. Buscaglia

The petitioner, an AFDC recipient, began receiving sick benefits from her employer's insurance policy after undergoing surgery. The Erie County Department of Social Services terminated her public assistance, viewing these sick benefits as not subject to the earned income disregard provisions of Federal law. The petitioner appealed, arguing that sick benefits should be considered earned income for the purpose of the 30 and one-third disregard. The New York State Department of Social Services affirmed the termination. The court found that sick benefits are distinguishable from unemployment compensation and should be treated as earned income, subject to the disregard provisions to encourage work incentives. Consequently, the court reversed the fair hearing decision, declared the respondents' policy unlawful, enjoined them from excluding sick benefits from the earned income disregard, and ordered retroactive reimbursement of benefits to the petitioner.

AFDC ProgramEarned Income DisregardSick BenefitsPublic AssistanceWelfare BenefitsSocial Security ActCPLR Article 78Statutory InterpretationAdministrative LawWork Incentives
References
7
Case No. 02 Civ. 4286, 02 Civ. 4297
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. Buttar

Petitioners David Jacaruso, Joseph Scotti, and Michael E. Wallace moved to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of respondents Daljit S. Buttar and Par-amit Buttar. The Buttars cross-moved to confirm the award. The arbitration, conducted by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), found the petitioners liable for misrepresentation, unauthorized trading, and fraud, and also as 'Control Persons,' jointly and severally liable for compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court, applying standards of 'manifest disregard of the law' and 'manifest disregard of the facts,' found that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law by imposing respondeat superior liability on the petitioners for actions of a broker and by finding fraud liability without evidence of intent. Furthermore, the court found the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law and facts regarding control person liability. Consequently, the court granted the petitioners' motion to vacate the arbitration award and denied the respondents' cross-motion to confirm it.

arbitrationvacaturconfirmationsecurities fraudcontrol person liabilitymanifest disregard of lawmanifest disregard of factsNASD arbitrationpunitive damagesrespondeat superior
References
24
Case No. ADJ7825020
Regular
Aug 31, 2015

MILTON LEWIS vs. BARLOW RESPIRATORY HOSPITAL, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a stipulation and order where they agreed to accept \$1,000.00 in full satisfaction of their lien. The lien claimant argued the stipulation was entered into by unilateral mistake as their representative lacked authorization. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the claimant failed to present evidence of unilateral mistake or to properly seek to set aside the stipulation. Furthermore, the claimant did not plead sufficient facts to support a unilateral mistake claim, such as the opposing party's knowledge and advantage, nor did they demonstrate they fulfilled their legal duty of reasonable inquiry.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderUnilateral mistakeAffirmative defenseGood causeRescinding contractMaterial factLegal duty
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the vacatur of an arbitration award. Wien & Malkin LLP sought to remove Helmsley-Spear, Inc. as managing agent for several New York City properties. An arbitration panel denied Wien & Malkin's request, which was initially confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, after a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, vacated the arbitration award, finding a 'manifest disregard of law' by the arbitrators regarding personal services contracts and proxy voting. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division's decision under the 'manifest disregard of law' standard, which requires a showing that arbitrators knew and ignored a well-defined legal principle. The Court of Appeals found that the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law in its conclusions regarding Helmsley-Spear as a valid successor, the proxy vote, or the voting agreement. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the original Supreme Court judgment confirming the arbitration award was reinstated.

Arbitration LawManifest Disregard of LawFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Contract LawPersonal Services ContractsPartnership LawSuccessor in InterestProxy VotingAppellate ReviewNew York Court of Appeals
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bart v. Miller

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order and judgment confirming an arbitration award. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order because the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment. The judgment itself was affirmed. The appellant's argument that the award violated strong public policy was unpreserved for appellate review. Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the arbitrators' award was not made in manifest disregard of the law or facts, as the appellant failed to identify any disregarded legal principle.

Arbitration AwardAppeal DismissedJudgment AffirmedPublic Policy ArgumentUnpreserved for ReviewManifest Disregard of LawCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewNassau County Supreme CourtArbitrators' Award
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 401 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