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
Jan 17, 2006

Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n of the City of New York, Inc. v. District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, affirming an earlier arbitrator’s award. The judgment, entered on January 17, 2006, by Justice Michael D. Stallman, confirmed an arbitrator's award dated September 2, 2004. The petitioners, who were not parties to the original arbitration between District Council 37 and the City of New York, sought to vacate this award. The court determined that the petitioners lacked standing, either statutorily or under common law, to seek the vacatur. Their claims of potential harm were deemed too speculative, especially since there was no evidence suggesting that any of their members would face layoffs or demotions as a result of the award. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the petition was unanimously affirmed by the appellate court.

Arbitration AwardStandingVacatur PetitionAppellate ReviewNew York LawSupreme CourtLabor DisputeDismissalAffirmed JudgmentCPLR
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Soto (Goldman)

Seven employees faced discharge and contested an arbitration award, arguing a conflict of interest arose from their union's attorney also representing their employer. After Special Term and the Appellate Division initially vacated the award, finding a denial of fair representation, the higher court reversed this decision and remitted the case. This dissenting opinion argues against the reversal, asserting that denying employees independent counsel, especially with the union attorney's conflict, fundamentally compromised the arbitration's fairness and vitiated the award. The dissent emphasizes that fair and good faith representation is essential, particularly when specific individual rights are directly implicated in arbitration proceedings.

ArbitrationUnion RepresentationConflict of InterestDue ProcessFair RepresentationVacatur of AwardAppellate ReviewCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee RightsJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between County of Ulster & Ulster County Sheriff's Employees Ass'n

Elíseo Baldizzi, a correction officer with Ulster County Sheriffs Department, sought General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits for an illness he claimed was work-related. After his claim was denied, the respondent initiated arbitration, resulting in an award in Baldizzi’s favor. Petitioners, the Ulster County Sheriffs Department and County of Ulster, then commenced a CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it violated public policy by not establishing a clear link between the illness and duties. The Supreme Court denied their motion and confirmed the award, agreeing with the arbitrator's finding that Baldizzi's illness was directly traceable to an incident during his employment. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no valid basis to disturb the arbitrator's award, as the arbitrator had indeed found a direct causal link.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCorrection OfficerIllnessDuty-Related Illness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKenna v. County of Nassau Office of County Attorney

In a case involving an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, a police officer sought to modify an arbitrator's award related to no-fault benefits. The officer, injured in a job-related accident, received full salary under General Municipal Law § 207-c and also applied for no-fault benefits. The arbitrator's award did not deduct the wage continuation payments, leading Special Term to vacate the award to prevent double recovery. The appellate court reversed Special Term's decision, finding the arbitrator's award was not irrational enough to warrant vacatur. However, the court did modify the award due to a miscalculation, acknowledging a statutory loophole in the original no-fault law that permitted such double recovery, which has since been legislatively closed.

Arbitration AwardNo-Fault Insurance BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law 207-cDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReversalCPLR 7511Police Officer InjuryInsurance Law § 671Miscalculation of Award
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aftor v. Geico Insurance

A petitioner, injured as a minor in an accident with an uninsured vehicle, sought arbitration with Geico Insurance Company under a supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) endorsement after securing a default judgment of $25,000 against the uninsured parties. The arbitrator awarded the petitioner $10,000. The petitioner then sought to vacate the arbitration award in Supreme Court, Kings County, arguing that Geico was obligated to pay the full $25,000 civil judgment. The Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the award. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the petition, and reinstating and confirming the $10,000 arbitration award, emphasizing the limited judicial review of arbitration awards unless specific grounds for vacatur (such as violating public policy or exceeding power) are met.

Arbitration LawInsurance LawUninsured MotoristSUM CoverageJudicial ReviewArbitration Award VacaturAppellate PracticeCivil ProcedureContract InterpretationBodily Injury Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Klikocki & New York Department of Corrections

This appeal concerns the vacatur of an arbitration award. The petitioner sought to overturn the award, alleging that the respondent fraudulently destroyed a crucial key log that would have supported the petitioner's claim of a work-related injury. The arbitration stemmed from the petitioner's discharge for misconduct, specifically for filing a workers' compensation claim for an injury purportedly sustained at work but alleged by a former girlfriend to have occurred while playing frisbee. The court found insufficient clear and convincing evidence of fraud, noting the key log's destruction was part of a routine record disposal and not maliciously intended. Furthermore, the court deemed the log's probative value limited regarding the central issue of the injury's true origin. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order vacating the arbitration award was reversed, the petition dismissed, and the original arbitration award confirmed.

FraudArbitration AwardVacaturWorkers' Compensation ClaimEvidence DestructionCPLR 7511MisconductAppealDue DiligenceKey Log
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Amato v. Leffler

This case involves an appeal by plaintiffs in Action No. 1, arising from two related actions concerning the dissolution of a partnership. The plaintiffs challenged a Supreme Court order from Suffolk County which denied their motion to vacate an arbitration award and appoint a receiver, along with their cross-motion to impose sanctions on the law firm Lazer, Aptheker, Feldman, Rosella & Yedid, LLP. The appellate court dismissed the appeal pertaining to the cross-motion, noting the earlier dismissal of the complaint in Action No. 2. Ultimately, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the arbitration award, concluding that the award was not violative of strong public policy, irrational, or exceeding the arbitrators' power. The court also found no misconduct in the arbitrators' refusal to hear evidence on issues previously decided by the court.

Partnership DissolutionArbitration Award VacaturCPLR 7511Appointment of ReceiverSanctionsAppellate ReviewArbitrator PowersPublic Policy ViolationIrrational AwardEvidentiary Ruling
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rotating Components, Inc. & District 4, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Petitioner moved to confirm an arbitration award, while Respondent cross-moved to vacate it, alleging imperfect execution and lack of a mutual, final, and definite award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement from December 1959, and a supplementary agreement from January 1960, which stipulated the assignment of the main agreement to a local union within 18 months, with arbitration if the assignment failed. The arbitrator issued an interim award on September 21, 1961, instructing the union to assign the agreement within 30 days. Upon the union's failure, the arbitrator, on October 29, 1961, assigned the agreement to a new local union to be formed for the employees of Rotating Components, Inc. The court found the arbitrator's award to be within his express powers and rejected the objection regarding the finality and definiteness of the award. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the award and denied the respondent's cross-motion to vacate it.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingUnion AssignmentContract DisputeMotion to ConfirmMotion to VacateLabor DisputeJudicial ReviewInterim AwardFinality of Award
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,787 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